Is the ACC down OR.....

JTS

JTS

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
2,006
did we just start the season with the wrong teams ranked high?

Discuss
 
You can tell yourself whatever you want to, but the answer to that question lies in the conference's bowl winning percentage and especially with the Orange Bowl victor. I'll reserve judgement until then.
 
College Football is viewed the wrong way in alot of respects.

A conference should not be considered "down" simply because the order of strength has changed. It's when the conference is composed of a majority of bad teams that it should be considered collectively "bad."
 
Is the ACC down OR..... did we just start the season with the wrong teams ranked high?
Click to expand...

Let me throw this thought out for discussion purposes. Could it be the normal change in conference structure as a result of the NCAA parity changes kicking in? Specifically, now that SAs are required to make formal progress toward a degree does it force some of the ACC schools like UM and FSU to hold athletes more accountable. For example, when some of the UM players can't perform in the classroom or stay out of jail it certainly affects their team. Consequently, lack of team performance by teams that would normally be expected to dominate is being interpreted as the ACC being down.
 
ACC 2006 compared to 2005
(OOC) represents record out of conference against teams from the other five BCS conferences + Notre Dame.

Team.....2006 (OOC)............2005 (OOC)
BC..........8-2....(0-0).............9-3....(0-0)
Clemson...8-3....(0-0).............8-4....(4-0)
Duke.......0-10...(0-2).............1-10..(0-0)
FSU........5-5.....(0-0).............8-5...(1-1)
GT..........8-2....(0-1)..............7-5...(2-1)
MD.........8-2.....(0-1).............5-6...(1-1)
Miami......5-5.....(0-1).............9-3...(3-1)
UNC........1-9.....(0-3).............5-6...(0-2)
NCST......3-7.....(0-0).............7-5...(1-0)
UVA........4-6.....(0-1).............7-5...(3-0)
VT..........8-2.....(1-0)............11-2..(2-0)
WF.........9-1.....(2-0).............4-7...(0-2)

Without getting to analytical, teams having better years in 2006 are: GT, MD, WF
Teams having seasons similar to last year: BC, Clemson, Duke, VT
Teams having a down year in 2006: FSU, Miami, UNC, NCST, UVA

So by the numbers there are more ACC teams having down years this year then there are having better years, with a third of the conference about the same.

The fact that both FSU and Miami are down obviously gets national attention. This is GT's 10th straight winning season, so it should not be that much of a surprise that GT has won the Coastal, they defeated a very good VT team to do it (on the road no less). Maryland is coming off back-to-back losing seasons after three 10 win (or more) seasons, but prior to that MD had been down since Bobby Ross left. WF is obviously a big surprise and will need to repeat this kind of season for a couple of years to be taken seriously.

The biggest thing these numbers show me, which do lend support to this being a down year in the conference is the out of conference combined records. In 2005, the ACC went 17-8 against other BCS conferences + ND. So far this year the record is 3-9 with more games to be played.

Still, BC, Clemson, GT, Maryland, VT and WF are enjoying very good season, all with at least 8 wins with games yet to be played. That's half the conference.
 
What would Wake Forest be ranked if they started where Clemson did?
 
GT65_UGA89 said:
Team.....2006 (OOC)............2005 (OOC)
Clemson...8-3....(0-0).............8-4....(4-0)
Click to expand...

I know that cu still has USC(e) and a bowl game left this year, but what other 2 OOC games did they win in '05?
 
pocket_watch said:
I know that cu still has USC(e) and a bowl game left this year, but what other 2 OOC games did they win in '05?
Click to expand...

Clemson: OOC 2005

W vs. Texas A&M 25-24
W @ South Carolina 13-9 (may have won the fight too)
W vs. Colorado 19-10 (Champs Sports Bowl)

I had mistakenly counted vs. Temple 37-7 as an OOC, but Temple was actually banished from the Big East for sucking so bad in 2004, not 2005. Maryland, Miami and Virginia also faced Temple in 2005 (you'd think they were in the ACC or something). So 17-8 was actually 13-8 in 2005, still a bit better than the 3-9 thus far.
 
I think it lies more with our out of conference record. We beat each other up during conference play.
 
GT65_UGA89 said:
Clemson: OOC 2005

W vs. Texas A&M 25-24
W @ South Carolina 13-9 (may have won the fight too)
W vs. Colorado 19-10 (Champs Sports Bowl)

I had mistakenly counted vs. Temple 37-7 as an OOC, but Temple was actually banished from the Big East for sucking so bad in 2004, not 2005. Maryland, Miami and Virginia also faced Temple in 2005 (you'd think they were in the ACC or something). So 17-8 was actually 13-8 in 2005, still a bit better than the 3-9 thus far.
Click to expand...
Wake Forest should be 3-0 vs. OOC BCS competition - UConn, Syracuse, and Ole Miss.
 
ContactBuzz said:
Wake Forest should be 3-0 vs. OOC BCS competition - UConn, Syracuse, and Ole Miss.
Click to expand...


Wake Forest OOC 2006:

W vs Syracuse .....20-10
W @ UConn ........24-13
W @ Ole Miss .......27-3

I think I overlooked Ole Miss, thanks C-Buzz.
 
After reconsidering, I don't think the acc is down per-se, but is not respected because the front runners did not go along with the pollsters game plan.

There is one 1 loss team, three 2 loss teams, and one 3 loss team after playing 10 games a piece.
The problem is that the successful fairly highly rated at one time acc teams lost to lower ranked acc teams, or something like that:

#24 GT whipped #11 VT
#12 cu whipped #13 GT
High teen ranked VT whipped #10 cu
Unranked ncsu beat mid to high teen BC,

While previously unranked 9-1 Wake and previously unranked 8-2 UMD who lost lopsidedly to highly ranked WVU, but both have put together great seasons. UMD is very dangerous now.

All this and the fact that fsu and um are terrible after both being highly regarded in August make the acc a pollsters nightmare.
You can also add to the mix that the acc is now a defensive conference. QB play is substandard throughout the league with the exception of Hollenbach at umd.
 
The ACC's OOC record, mainly brought down by UNC and Duke, is poor but what really killed us what Miami getting whipped by UL. It's amazing to me that writers, etc. can't go back and rethink things. Miami is getting whipped by just about everybody in the ACC this year but the same UNC and Duke teams.

Maryland getting whipped by WVu in the first half hurt too, but the second half MD outplayed WV, the same as their season.
 
You guys are funny. Of course we are down this year. The ACC had more NFL draft picks last year than any other conference EVER! There is no way you go through that amount of talent loss without having a down year the next year. I mean, come on! FSU and NCST had SEVEN first rounders between them last year. You don't lose that talent without a down year and the parity in today's football scene.

However, towards the end of this year, it seems the new guys are maturing really well. Maryland is doing much better. I'd like to see them play WVU again. I'm not so sure about us. We seem to be really tired. Hopefully, that'll change in time for the UGA game. Miami is Miami...they stink. Wake is a decent program, but not great. VT is having a down year. FSU is down. BC is not as good as last year. Losing Kiawanuka hurt their defense.

But the great thing is...UGA is having a down year too.
 
I just don't see VT as having a down year:

2006- 8-2
2005- 10-2
2004- 7-5
2003- 9-3
2002- 11-1
2001- 11-1
2000- 8-4
1999- 10-4
1998- 8-5
1997- 10-3

Their only losses are to GT (8-2) and BC (8-2). VT had outstanding seasons in '01 & '02, no doubt, but they're not one of those 'premier' programs that are exected to challenge for a NC every year.

Actually, they're on pace to have one of their better seasons of the past decade.

The same could be said for BC:

8-2, 9-3, 9-3, 8-5, 9-4, 8-4, 7-5, 8-4, 4-7, 4-7 in their last ten seasons. This is not a down season for BC. It's one of the better seasons they've had in over 20 years (10-2 in '84).
 
BOR, the bowl record will matter a whole lot more than just the Orange Bowl. Nobody questions that we are missing that huge top dog this year, but does that make a conference down or make a conference down in the TOP 10 world of ESPN.

If we go 3-4 in the bowls that'd be one thing. If we go 5-2 and lose the Orange Bowl, likewise why would that be so hurtful.

The media is in a long term phase of attacking the ACC, particularly the northeast media and the midwest that sucks up to them all the time. I think they should be celebrating the ACC this season for actually having a conference race. That's unheard of in college football. The media conditions us to believe that the only thing that matters is the Top Dog in your conference. That would suggest that Company A is better than Company B because of A's higher grossing top salesman, even though B is twice as large/profitable.

Sorry I didn't mean to pick you out, just using your post.
 
midatlantech said:
The media is in a long term phase of attacking the ACC, particularly the northeast media and the midwest that sucks up to them all the time.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The media was very very big on the ACC during expansion because what was suppose to happen as that UM and FSU would run shop on the league and the ACC would be like the Big 10 and Big 12 every year, where one or 2 teams totally destroy everyone else. The media LOVES this situation, especially if its big name teams doing it. The ACC set up the divisions to promote such a sitation.

The ACC is "down" because a GT/MD/WF lead conference doesn't pull that much attention. A VT/UM/FSU lead conference, performing equal to that of GT/MD/WF would be considered strong, because they have more pull. Its all about making money, and honestly, GT/MD/WF are a much harder sell than VT/UM/FSU. They could care less how good the teams are.
 
So odw, how do you change it?

The NFL does just fine on a league of constant change and in fact they make the best teams play the toughest schedules every year in order to keep it all close.

Why can't the college conferences have the same kind of year and still be considered decent? (I guess I know that the answer is that we have no playoff and either you are "in" or your gone.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top