(01-29-2020 01:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:04 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  Yes, an impressive start to the season indeedy.

But......the ACC scheduling office sure rewarded the Orangemen as well. That had to be one of the softest schedules of all time with the only OOC road trips to a tourney in Hawaii and a game in Madison Square Garden against St. John’s. UNC and Duke both at home. Finished reg season 3-6, lost first round of the ACC tourney, and said bye in the second round of the Dance after meeting up with Dayton.

As I said, injuries took its toll on Syracuse after dominating the ACC and going 25-0 in its first season in the league. NO ONE ever went 25-0 in the BE. As far as Syracuse being an "also ran," as you say, in the ACC, I attribute it to two issues, Syracuse recent probation issues and JB hanging on too long. I guess I am failing in trying to get you to understand that those issues would be apparent whether SU played in the BE or the ACC. It has nothing to do with the ACC being tougher, as you seem to be propagating.

Folks have have used verifiable and trusted sources to show that the former BE was superior to the former ACC in almost every way, conference strength, NCAA tourney credits, NCAA Tourney wins, Sweet 16's, Elite 8's and Final Four's. The BE was totally dominant, yet you bring up a kooky stat cherry picking the top 3 seasons of each conference , to prove your point from your "alternate reality."

But Im done debating this, as others have already shown you that your logic is very flawed. You should do the same.

By the same hand, Virginia improved drastically and won a national title. UNC won a title and also made some deep runs. So to say that the Big East surpassed the ACC and to pretend it would always be that way is just as kooky, no?

I don’t understand how taking the actual winning percentage of the conference in consideration is kooky, but okay. You can’t ignore how bad the bottom of the Big East was.

Anyway, I’m done as well. It was a spirited debate, with rip roaring speeches and frightened children. The mead flowed like wine and the minstrels played their warring tunes.

With the mead flowing, I'm tempted to pen a limerick.

Regale us!

There was a tall lad in Woad Blue
who was told not to endorse for his shoes
He got free grades instead,
so he could play without dread,
with NCAA authority eschewed!

(01-29-2020 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:04 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  As I said, injuries took its toll on Syracuse after dominating the ACC and going 25-0 in its first season in the league. NO ONE ever went 25-0 in the BE. As far as Syracuse being an "also ran," as you say, in the ACC, I attribute it to two issues, Syracuse recent probation issues and JB hanging on too long. I guess I am failing in trying to get you to understand that those issues would be apparent whether SU played in the BE or the ACC. It has nothing to do with the ACC being tougher, as you seem to be propagating.

Folks have have used verifiable and trusted sources to show that the former BE was superior to the former ACC in almost every way, conference strength, NCAA tourney credits, NCAA Tourney wins, Sweet 16's, Elite 8's and Final Four's. The BE was totally dominant, yet you bring up a kooky stat cherry picking the top 3 seasons of each conference , to prove your point from your "alternate reality."

But Im done debating this, as others have already shown you that your logic is very flawed. You should do the same.

By the same hand, Virginia improved drastically and won a national title. UNC won a title and also made some deep runs. So to say that the Big East surpassed the ACC and to pretend it would always be that way is just as kooky, no?

I don’t understand how taking the actual winning percentage of the conference in consideration is kooky, but okay. You can’t ignore how bad the bottom of the Big East was.

Anyway, I’m done as well. It was a spirited debate, with rip roaring speeches and frightened children. The mead flowed like wine and the minstrels played their warring tunes.

With the mead flowing, I'm tempted to pen a limerick.

Regale us!

There was a tall lad in Woad Blue
who was told not to endorse for his shoes
He got free grades instead,
so he could play without dread,
with NCAA authority eschewed!

Splendidly played, good sir (but for the fact the Blue, shoes and eschewed don't fully rhyme).

(01-29-2020 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:04 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  As I said, injuries took its toll on Syracuse after dominating the ACC and going 25-0 in its first season in the league. NO ONE ever went 25-0 in the BE. As far as Syracuse being an "also ran," as you say, in the ACC, I attribute it to two issues, Syracuse recent probation issues and JB hanging on too long. I guess I am failing in trying to get you to understand that those issues would be apparent whether SU played in the BE or the ACC. It has nothing to do with the ACC being tougher, as you seem to be propagating.

Folks have have used verifiable and trusted sources to show that the former BE was superior to the former ACC in almost every way, conference strength, NCAA tourney credits, NCAA Tourney wins, Sweet 16's, Elite 8's and Final Four's. The BE was totally dominant, yet you bring up a kooky stat cherry picking the top 3 seasons of each conference , to prove your point from your "alternate reality."

But Im done debating this, as others have already shown you that your logic is very flawed. You should do the same.

By the same hand, Virginia improved drastically and won a national title. UNC won a title and also made some deep runs. So to say that the Big East surpassed the ACC and to pretend it would always be that way is just as kooky, no?

I don’t understand how taking the actual winning percentage of the conference in consideration is kooky, but okay. You can’t ignore how bad the bottom of the Big East was.

Anyway, I’m done as well. It was a spirited debate, with rip roaring speeches and frightened children. The mead flowed like wine and the minstrels played their warring tunes.

With the mead flowing, I'm tempted to pen a limerick.

Regale us!

There was a tall lad in Woad Blue
who was told not to endorse for his shoes
He got free grades instead,
so he could play without dread,
with NCAA authority eschewed!

This is false - all limericks must include subjects from Peru or Nantucket. Them's the rules.

USFFan

Think they may have them all in-98. Stragglers preferred the ACC, but AAC is still slightly ahead.

1. SEC 42.89
2. B12 46.03
3. B10 48.72
4. P12 49.23
5. AAC 60.28
6. ACC 60.36
7. MWC 74.57
8. SBC 82.76
9. IND 84.71
10. USA 91.10
11. MAC 92.26

Computers weren't too fond of the ACC other than Clemson. Virginia is the #2 ACC team at #34. Ahead of them are 6 SEC, 6 Big 10, 5 AAC, 5 Big 12, 4 Pac 12, 2 MWC, 2 Sun Belt, 1 CUSA and 1 Independent.

And before you start getting to the 3rd ACC school (and a number closely following) at #42 UNC, you have 8 SEC, 8 Big 10, 5 AAC, 6 Big 12, 5 Pac 12, 3 MWC, 2 Sun Belt, 1 CUSA and 1 Indpendent along with Clemson and UVA.

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  By the same hand, Virginia improved drastically and won a national title. UNC won a title and also made some deep runs. So to say that the Big East surpassed the ACC and to pretend it would always be that way is just as kooky, no?

I don’t understand how taking the actual winning percentage of the conference in consideration is kooky, but okay. You can’t ignore how bad the bottom of the Big East was.

Anyway, I’m done as well. It was a spirited debate, with rip roaring speeches and frightened children. The mead flowed like wine and the minstrels played their warring tunes.

With the mead flowing, I'm tempted to pen a limerick.

Regale us!

There was a tall lad in Woad Blue
who was told not to endorse for his shoes
He got free grades instead,
so he could play without dread,
with NCAA authority eschewed!

Splendidly played, good sir (but for the fact the Blue, shoes and eschewed don't fully rhyme).

I considered the askance rhyme scheme wholly appropriate as things explained at UNC don't exactly synchronize either.

(01-29-2020 04:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  With the mead flowing, I'm tempted to pen a limerick.

Regale us!

There was a tall lad in Woad Blue
who was told not to endorse for his shoes
He got free grades instead,
so he could play without dread,
with NCAA authority eschewed!

Splendidly played, good sir (but for the fact the Blue, shoes and eschewed don't fully rhyme).

I considered the askance rhyme scheme wholly appropriate as things explained at UNC don't exactly synchronize either.

Though I root for the Heels, any criticism of the UNC program and delivered via a limerick is more than acceptable.

(01-29-2020 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:43 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Back to the topic at hand ... in the last few days 15 more computers have been added to the MC bringing it up to 98. AAC still leads ACC but the margin has shrank.

AAC ... 60.28
ACC ... 60.36

0.08 out of 60 seems like "within computational error"

And that 0.08 doesn't account for how UNC was a few points from going undefeated.

If we're going down that road, VT was literally just 2 plays from finishing 11-2. That said, JR is correct - it was a very bad year for ACC football. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Actually Mark close counts in dating and in marriage as well!

In matters of romance, if you ain't close, it don't count!

(01-29-2020 02:24 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  By the same hand, Virginia improved drastically and won a national title. UNC won a title and also made some deep runs. So to say that the Big East surpassed the ACC and to pretend it would always be that way is just as kooky, no?

I don’t understand how taking the actual winning percentage of the conference in consideration is kooky, but okay. You can’t ignore how bad the bottom of the Big East was.

Anyway, I’m done as well. It was a spirited debate, with rip roaring speeches and frightened children. The mead flowed like wine and the minstrels played their warring tunes.

With the mead flowing, I'm tempted to pen a limerick.

Regale us!

There was a tall lad in Woad Blue
who was told not to endorse for his shoes
He got free grades instead,
so he could play without dread,
with NCAA authority eschewed!

This is false - all limericks must include subjects from Peru or Nantucket. Them's the rules.

USFFan

As for the bucket, paw tuck it.

This is probably about as good of a year as the AAC is ever going to have, and as bad as the ACC will ever have. And the AAC was barely better.

Anyway, even if Memphis had gone undefeated, they would have received no consideration for the playoff. As I noted in another thread, not only did the Big East 2.0 come a few bounces away from having a team in the national title game, but the MWC and WAC did early in the 2010s too. The AAC champion, even an undefeated champion, doesn't even get as much respect as the Boise State and TCU teams did a decade ago.

(02-08-2020 03:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  This is probably about as good of a year as the AAC is ever going to have, and as bad as the ACC will ever have. And the AAC was barely better.

Anyway, even if Memphis had gone undefeated, they would have received no consideration for the playoff. As I noted in another thread, not only did the Big East 2.0 come a few bounces away from having a team in the national title game, but the MWC and WAC did early in the 2010s too. The AAC champion, even an undefeated champion, doesn't even get as much respect as the Boise State and TCU teams did a decade ago.

You are right, the playoff committee would not buy in if UCF goes undefeated. Lets see what happens if this happens, since it has happened already.

(02-08-2020 03:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  This is probably about as good of a year as the AAC is ever going to have, and as bad as the ACC will ever have. And the AAC was barely better.

Anyway, even if Memphis had gone undefeated, they would have received no consideration for the playoff. As I noted in another thread, not only did the Big East 2.0 come a few bounces away from having a team in the national title game, but the MWC and WAC did early in the 2010s too. The AAC champion, even an undefeated champion, doesn't even get as much respect as the Boise State and TCU teams did a decade ago.

There's two reasons for that. First, the conferences Boise and TCU were in 10 years ago were better than the AAC is now. Second, those Boise and TCU and Utah teams were better than the best AAC teams are now. In both cases, the computer rankings show it.

CFP bias has zero to do with it, had we used the AP poll or the computers alone or the BCS formula, no AAC team, even UCF in 2017 and 2018, would have gotten near the top 4.

As a Memphis fan, I will acknowledge this year's Tiger team was not as strong as the Boise, Utah and TCU teams referenced earlier in this post.

Now I have a haircut appointment and will trust you lads continue the debate.

(02-08-2020 03:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  This is probably about as good of a year as the AAC is ever going to have, and as bad as the ACC will ever have. And the AAC was barely better.

Anyway, even if Memphis had gone undefeated, they would have received no consideration for the playoff. As I noted in another thread, not only did the Big East 2.0 come a few bounces away from having a team in the national title game, but the MWC and WAC did early in the 2010s too. The AAC champion, even an undefeated champion, doesn't even get as much respect as the Boise State and TCU teams did a decade ago.

The committee will make sure they don't.

(02-08-2020 10:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 03:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  This is probably about as good of a year as the AAC is ever going to have, and as bad as the ACC will ever have. And the AAC was barely better.

Anyway, even if Memphis had gone undefeated, they would have received no consideration for the playoff. As I noted in another thread, not only did the Big East 2.0 come a few bounces away from having a team in the national title game, but the MWC and WAC did early in the 2010s too. The AAC champion, even an undefeated champion, doesn't even get as much respect as the Boise State and TCU teams did a decade ago.

The committee will make sure they don't.

There's one way to confirm the notion that the committee will always edge the goalposts away from a G5 team to keep them out, no matter how deserving: When other indicators, such as the AP poll or the computers, say that a G5 team deserves to be in the top 4, but the committee keeps them out anyway.

So far, hasn't come close to happening.

(02-08-2020 12:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 10:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 03:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  This is probably about as good of a year as the AAC is ever going to have, and as bad as the ACC will ever have. And the AAC was barely better.

Anyway, even if Memphis had gone undefeated, they would have received no consideration for the playoff. As I noted in another thread, not only did the Big East 2.0 come a few bounces away from having a team in the national title game, but the MWC and WAC did early in the 2010s too. The AAC champion, even an undefeated champion, doesn't even get as much respect as the Boise State and TCU teams did a decade ago.

The committee will make sure they don't.

There's one way to confirm the notion that the committee will always edge the goalposts away from a G5 team to keep them out, no matter how deserving: When other indicators, such as the AP poll or the computers, say that a G5 team deserves to be in the top 4, but the committee keeps them out anyway.

So far, hasn't come close to happening.

Top 4 is rare. I don't think anyone but TCU did it. Utah got there, but it was after the bowls.

(01-28-2020 09:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:07 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  Postseason success is not a good benchmark for how good a conference is overall. Otherwise, the ACC is clearly the second best football conference because of Clemson’s playoff appearances.

I tend to agree with this, although I do think in hoops, NCAA tournament bids is a good marker, as this goes beyond merely who wins the national title, which is always a single team.

But looking at RealTime Conference RPI for 2008 - 2012, as that covers all teams and the period leading up to ACC raids on Big East:

Year ......... ACC .... Big East

2008 ........ 1 ........ 5
2009 ........ 1 ........ 4
2010 ........ 3 ........ 2
2011 ........ 5 ........ 1
2012 ........ 6 ........ 2

To me, this looks like a pattern of the Big East surpassing the ACC as the ACC tumbled from the top.

For two seasons and then what? Syracuse hasn’t been close to dominating the ACC, Pitt has finally turned the corner after being shellacked for a few seasons, and Louisville has performed fairly well. Notre Dame is now back to Earth after a few strong showings. If it was a true trend then they would all be atop the ACC standings, no?

The fact that those Big East teams had surpassed the ACC is shown in the first couple of seasons after the last expansion:

2013-14 Syracuse won their 1st 12 ACC games in a row, including wins over UNC and Duke, finished 2nd (behind UVa).
2014-15 Notre Dame 3rd, Louisville 4th, Syracuse 8th.

Keep in mind: the ACC only added 4 teams, and 3 of them tore it up in hoops at first (now it's down to Louisville - but that may be due to a lot of things)

Good point, Gobbler. I forgot about Syracuse starting hot and then proceeding to be an also-ran in the conference. Once ACC coaches figured them out, it was o-v-a.

You failed to mention Pitt.

Are you really that insecure? There are plenty of reasons besides "durr the ACC is tougher" that Syracuse and Pitt are where they are in the standings. Boeheim hanging on too long and Jaime Dixon leaving Pitt are two fairly obvious ones

(02-08-2020 01:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 12:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 10:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 03:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  This is probably about as good of a year as the AAC is ever going to have, and as bad as the ACC will ever have. And the AAC was barely better.

Anyway, even if Memphis had gone undefeated, they would have received no consideration for the playoff. As I noted in another thread, not only did the Big East 2.0 come a few bounces away from having a team in the national title game, but the MWC and WAC did early in the 2010s too. The AAC champion, even an undefeated champion, doesn't even get as much respect as the Boise State and TCU teams did a decade ago.

The committee will make sure they don't.

There's one way to confirm the notion that the committee will always edge the goalposts away from a G5 team to keep them out, no matter how deserving: When other indicators, such as the AP poll or the computers, say that a G5 team deserves to be in the top 4, but the committee keeps them out anyway.

So far, hasn't come close to happening.

Top 4 is rare. I don't think anyone but TCU did it. Utah got there, but it was after the bowls.

TCU was 4th in the BCS standings following the 2009 season, and 3rd after the 2010 season. I’m sure TCU would have made the playoffs in 2010. IDK what would have happened between TCU, UF and Boise State in 2009.


No non-BCS team other than TCU ever finished in the top 4 in the BCS standings. The 2004 Utah team and 2009 Boise State teams are the only other teams that even finished in the BCS top 6.

Massey Composite now has 102 rankings compiled, and the American remains ahead of the ACC.

#1 SEC 42.86
#2 B12 46.06
#3 B10 48.65
#4 P12 49.24
#5 AAC 60.28
#6 ACC 60.40
#7 mwc 74.59
#8 SunBelt 82.79
#9 Indies 84.72
#10 CUSA 91.08
#11 MAC 92.26

The ACC has probably its worst season in history and the AAC finishes .12 ahead in a computer ranking. Congrats?