Weaker than the MWC?

The ACC is in the top 4 conferences in any scenario. Furthermore, Texas would wipe it's ass with the whole MWC, not to mention that the team-for team conference breakdown STILL leaves the majority of the wins on Big Texas' side.

Boise and TCU got to #3 and #6 by beating one or two quality opponents. When they played eachother, TCU clearly had not earned it's way up there. Boise MIGHT be a quality team, but they've got to play somebody someday to prove it. In any case, it does not go a long way towards validating the MWC at all, and the team for team vs the ACC would be shameful to them.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
The ACC is in the top 4 conferences in any scenario. Furthermore, Texas would wipe it's ass with the whole MWC, not to mention that the team-for team conference breakdown STILL leaves the majority of the wins on Big Texas' side.

Boise and TCU got to #3 and #6 by beating one or two quality opponents. When they played eachother, TCU clearly had not earned it's way up there. Boise MIGHT be a quality team, but they've got to play somebody someday to prove it. In any case, it does not go a long way towards validating the MWC at all, and the team for team vs the ACC would be shameful to them.
Click to expand...
ACC coastal is one of the top divisions in college football easily in my opinion.
 
DeRRtyTree said:
ACC coastal is one of the top divisions in college football easily in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It really is. You've got three legitimate top 15 type teams there, assuming that three of GT, Miami, VT, and UNC live up to the hype. The Atlantic, however, is not up to snuff. They could easily end up without one top 15 team.
 
BarrelORum said:
I have to say given the current climate that the conferences are ranked in this order:
1.) SEC
2.) Big Ten
3.) ACC
4.) Pac 10
5.) Big Texas
6.) MWC
7.) Big East
8.) Conference USA
Click to expand...


I think BOR is right on! No way MWC is even close to the ACC/SEC/B10 or even the PAC10.
 
Valdosta_Jacket said:
Big 12 has: Texas, Texas....a weak OU, and eight dwarfs.

MWC has Boise, TCU, Utah, and BYU..

Are these conferences equal now?

My 2010 rankings:
1) SEC
2) ACC
3) BIG Ten
4) Pac Ten
5) MWC
6) Big 12 aka UT and 7 other random teams.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but Oklahoma State and Texas Tech have both been ranked in the Top 10 in the past few years. Kansas went to a BCS game. And as much as you don't want to admit it, Texas A&M is a huge football school with a great tradition. I would say your list should look like this:

SEC
Big Ten
Big 12
Pac 10/ACC
MWC
Big East
 
What don't we do this (in no order within tier):

Tier I: SEC, Big Ten
Tier II: Big 12, ACC, Pac 10
Tier III: Big East, MWC
Tier IV: WAC, C-USA, Sunbelt, MAC

Tier I and II should get BCS automatic bids, Tier III should share an automatic bid based on final rankings, Tier IV should not get an automatic bid.
 
TechPhi97 said:
I'm sorry, but Oklahoma State and Texas Tech have both been ranked in the Top 10 in the past few years. Kansas went to a BCS game. And as much as you don't want to admit it, Texas A&M is a huge football school with a great tradition. I would say your list should look like this:

SEC
Big Ten
Big 12
Pac 10/ACC
MWC
Big East
Click to expand...

Except we're ranking them as they stand now. Not how they were 3 or more years ago. Texas Tech is not going to be the same team it was in the past. Kansas blew last year and is undergoing major rebuilding and Okie St just lost its version of Calvin Johnson and Joe Hamilton. Personally, I'd say Big 12 and ACC are a close tie. Texas would prolly beat the ACC best, but 2nd through the top half would likely be won by the ACC depending on the match-ups.
 
gtphd said:
What don't we do this (in no order within tier):

Tier I: SEC, Big Ten
Tier II: Big 12, ACC, Pac 10
Tier III: Big East, MWC
Tier IV: WAC, C-USA, Sunbelt, MAC

Tier I and II should get BCS automatic bids, Tier III should share an automatic bid based on final rankings, Tier IV should not get an automatic bid.
Click to expand...

+1, as long as it is a fluctuating tier system, similar to Soccer leagues in Europe (depending on how your league does, you could float up or float down on the tiers, leaving the number of conferences the same on each tier)
 
TechPhi97 said:
I'm sorry, but Oklahoma State and Texas Tech have both been ranked in the Top 10 in the past few years. Kansas went to a BCS game. And as much as you don't want to admit it, Texas A&M is a huge football school with a great tradition. I would say your list should look like this:

SEC
Big Ten
Big 12
Pac 10/ACC
MWC
Big East
Click to expand...
You're funny. I'd honestly take the Aggies over TT/KU/OKST, which isn't saying much.
Considering OKST lost their major players and has never had a good defense.
TT has an air raid offense with no defense.
Kansas lost its coach.
The Aggies might be up and coming, but they are not on the level fo Texas.
 
GTLiebs said:
Except we're ranking them as they stand now. Not how they were 3 or more years ago. Texas Tech is not going to be the same team it was in the past. Kansas blew last year and is undergoing major rebuilding and Okie St just lost its version of Calvin Johnson and Joe Hamilton. Personally, I'd say Big 12 and ACC are a close tie. Texas would prolly beat the ACC best, but 2nd through the top half would likely be won by the ACC depending on the match-ups.
Click to expand...
So we should rank them based on future, unplayed results?

Teams from every conference lose good players every year, FWIW.

Texas lost 6 players to the draft, including it's all star QB and WR.
 
BuzzMD said:
+1, as long as it is a fluctuating tier system, similar to Soccer leagues in Europe (depending on how your league does, you could float up or float down on the tiers, leaving the number of conferences the same on each tier)
Click to expand...

Agreed. Every few years you re-rank teams somehow (poll all teams, use some formula based on historical rankings, doesn't matter). This is also how you could put 11 conferences + independents into an 8-team playoff system.
 
GTLiebs said:
Except we're ranking them as they stand now. Not how they were 3 or more years ago. Texas Tech is not going to be the same team it was in the past. Kansas blew last year and is undergoing major rebuilding and Okie St just lost its version of Calvin Johnson and Joe Hamilton. Personally, I'd say Big 12 and ACC are a close tie. Texas would prolly beat the ACC best, but 2nd through the top half would likely be won by the ACC depending on the match-ups.
Click to expand...

So....you know how they're going to do in this upcoming season? Send me the info so I can place my wagers!

If you apply the same logic to the ACC, you get a similar or worse result. People have been calling it "UNC's Year" for about four years now. Miami is inconsistent and there shouldn't be too much of a change from that. GT lost its four best players, including the only All-America on defense, plus we're installing a new system. Wake, Duke, BC, NC State, Maryland all suck.

I prefer to go off of recent history rather than what people are saying may happen this coming year. Weren't the Pups ranked #1 heading into the season a few years back?

Once we prove it on the field (and win a few BCS games), you can't claim the ACC is above the Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10.
 
DeRRtyTree said:
You're funny. I'd honestly take the Aggies over TT/KU/OKST, which isn't saying much.
Considering OKST lost their major players and has never had a good defense.
TT has an air raid offense with no defense.
Kansas lost its coach.
The Aggies might be up and coming, but they are not on the level fo Texas.
Click to expand...

If you're going off of last year's performance, the same can be said for the ACC:

- Miami imploded at the end of the year.
- GT lost its top four players, including an AA on defense with no likely replacement.
- UNC hasn't been able to put together a solid four quarters of offense in about a decade. As you say, they "may be up and coming" but they're not even on the level with us, or VT, or Miami, or Clemson!
- Speaking of, Clemson is losing its QB and the best offensive player they've seen in decades.
- FSU has turned over its entire coaching staff.

The only team without any questions is VT, and they would get smoked by Texas.
 
JJacket said:
Williams and Evans may have 300+ yards rushing between them and Tyrod Taylor might add another 50 or so rushing and probably 150 passing. VT is gonna curb stomp Boise.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Boise stopped Oregon because they're used to playing spread teams. VT will line up in the I and ram the ball down their throats. It will be a repeat of UGA-BSU
 
TechinItEasy said:
So we should rank them based on future, unplayed results?

Teams from every conference lose good players every year, FWIW.

Texas lost 6 players to the draft, including it's all star QB and WR.
Click to expand...

Where in my post did I say something about judging them on the games not played? I said we should judge them based on things that didn't happen in the last few years.

Yeah every team loses players, but Zach Robinson blew their school records apart. Odds aren't great they replace him without missing a beat.

TechPhi97 said:
So....you know how they're going to do in this upcoming season? Send me the info so I can place my wagers!

If you apply the same logic to the ACC, you get a similar or worse result. People have been calling it "UNC's Year" for about four years now. Miami is inconsistent and there shouldn't be too much of a change from that. GT lost its four best players, including the only All-America on defense, plus we're installing a new system. Wake, Duke, BC, NC State, Maryland all suck.

I prefer to go off of recent history rather than what people are saying may happen this coming year. Weren't the Pups ranked #1 heading into the season a few years back?

Once we prove it on the field (and win a few BCS games), you can't claim the ACC is above the Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 10.
Click to expand...

For one, I wasn't trying to argue ACC better than Big 12, I was saying that the more recent stuff should outweigh the less recent. A head coaching change that might involve complete philosophy changes should mean more than a BCS appearance 3 years ago or a big season 2 years ago (Kansas and TT).
 
gtfan1147 said:
That was 48-13. Not a chance it'll be like that.
Click to expand...

Really, not a chance? VT is going to be a pretty good football team. I'll say VT by 3 TD's and Boise's QB getting a good beating. VT will easily be the best team they have played in the last couple of seasons - and before try to say it, TCU is not as good as VT.
 
JJacket said:
Really, not a chance? VT is going to be a pretty good football team. I'll say VT by 3 TD's and Boise's QB getting a good beating. VT will easily be the best team they have played in the last couple of seasons - and before try to say it, TCU is not as good as VT.
Click to expand...

I concur. Boise is no Alabama, but VT is going to play them like one.

Maryland and South Carolina BOTH scored more points on Clemson than TCU did. Furthermore, Clemson is coached by Dabo, a serious handycap. They turned the ball over on downs THREE TIMES against TCU. (can't get the play-by-play data to come up right now, but i'm pretty sure that will cost you some points). If TCU had lost that game (like they should have) you would've never heard about them again.

VT would destroy TCU. I'm pretty sure they'll dismantle Boise too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top