The ACC Championship Game: Failure or Fiasco?

[Duvall]

So I'm watching this year's ACC White Elephant/football championship game, once again featuring attendance resembling nothing so much as Wallace Wade during the Roofranks Administration, and I'm left wondering why exactly it was so important for the league to cast aside the round robins in football and basketball to stage this important event.

So I put it to the DBR community - is the ACC championship game a mere failure, a full-blown fiasco or merely a success that hasn't occurred yet (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002250.php)?

[Bob Green]

It is a full scale fiasco. I was not in favor of expansion, do not like the results of expansion, and have no intention of "getting over it" and moving on. Expansion was and remains a bad idea - not that I'm opinionated or anything.

[Indoor66]

It is a full scale fiasco. I was not in favor of expansion, do not like the results of expansion, and have no intention of "getting over it" and moving on. Expansion was and remains a bad idea - not that I'm opinionated or anything.

Hey, Bob, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think! :)

I agree. Expansion has been a joke in all sports.

[Acymetric]

Hey, Bob, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think! :)

I agree. Expansion has been a joke in all sports.

Not only has it not noticeably improved level of play in sports, it also destroyed one of the best scheduling systems in the country. No, the best. The only team I've even been remotely pleased with is BC football, which I've taken a liking to. Still don't like their bball team, nor do I like anything from Miami or VT.

[Papa John]

"I'm bumfuzzled"... Personally, I vacillate between the failure and success waiting to happen choices. I simply cannot believe that FSU and Miami will continue to be mired in mediocrity as they have been since the merge...

Yet, in large part, they still are... If they fail to re-emerge, VaTech continues to slide into reverse, and BC/UNC/GaTech/UVa/etc. simply maintain position as potential teens-at-best, 20-25 or just outside the rankings teams, then I'd say you could dub the merge as an outright fiasco, due to the overall negative impact on hoops... That's the frightening prospect, I suppose--that the ACC continues to field 2/3-loss, good but not great football teams in its championship game, leading the truly strong FB conferences to eventually ask the unthinkable question: "Do the ACC and Big East champions really deserve an automatic place at the BCS table?" That would be a disaster... Ultimately, if you really fail to cash in on the FB dollars, then the exercise was largely pointless, wasn't it?

Like I said, though, I find it hard to believe that the conference will continue to be mired in mediocrity... Someone's got to [re]emerge as a powerhouse eventually, right?

[Acymetric]

A fiasco. The game itself is a failure, all the consequences of getting the game are a complete fiasco. Not worth it at all. In fact, I can't see that we've gained anything. Is it too late to change our minds? By which I mean change the ACC's mind?

[throatybeard]

First of all, if the ACCCG is so insignificant, why was it necessary to start a third thread about it?

I'm somewhat divided on whether I'm optimistic about the ACCCG in the future or not.

I think a big reason for its struggles is simply the lack of elite teams in the leauge over these five seasons. If FSU were still FSU, if Miami were still Miami, if Clemson and Carolina weren't such football underachievers, if Virginia Tech managed to avoid those 1.5 embarrassing upsets per year, then we'd have some top 10ish teams every year. And if we had some top ten teams, the game would sell out and the game would be a lot bigger deal nationally. If Alabama and Florida were both 8-4, the SECCG wouldn't be the lead story of the sports week. Miami is supposed to stop sucking pretty soon. That would benefit the ACCCG a lot. Presumably, the league won't lack elite teams forever, so that's some cause for optimism about the game.

OTOH, the ACC has at least four factors, besides a lack of elite teams, working against a successful championship game, all relating to the fact that the league is full of schools that don't travel worth crap.

--School size. Four is a lot of private schools for one conference. Two have made three appearances in the game in five years, and Miami presumably will at some point. And some of the state schools aren't very big either, at least compared to Texas, Minnesota, Florida &c. USC and Notre Dame travel, but most private schools don't.

--A partial (Carolina) or nearly complete lack (Duke) of understanding of football culture at some of the schools. Everybody in SEC country this week is watching that Bama-Florida game--the other ten schools as well.

--The conference is too damn spread out. I'm not going to look up how far it is from Boston to Tampa, but my guess is around 1300 miles. And even from the center of the conference, it's a haul to central or south Florida.

--The Florida locations are ill-thought out. The thinking here was that Miami-FSU would be the perennial matchup. Betting on two teams isn't a good strategy. This probably seemed a good idea with a decade of FSU dominance in recent memory during expansion. But FSU is one of the few decent traveling schools in the league. When they're in the game, they'd go even if you put the game somewhere other than Florida. So put the game nearer the schools that don't travel as well. That sounds backwards, but it makes sense.

The game needs to be in Charlotte, which is pretty close to eight of the schools in an Atlanta-to-Charlottesville swath. Virginia Tech has been in all but one of the five ACCCSs so far (3-1), and while that won't always last, it's a lot easier to afford a shorter trip. I don't know the ACC brass have noticed or not, but Florida's a long narrow peninsula and it's not close to anything but Cuba and south Georgia. The SEC doesn't put their championship in Louisville or Shreveport, way on the periphery of the territory. Atlanta's somewhat remote from Arkansas and Louisiana, but reasonably close to everybody else.

Some of these things can be fixed more easily than others. Start with putting the game in Charlotte. (And don't give me the weak excuse about weather. Football is played outdoors in Green Bay and Buffalo in January. We're talking about the South in December).

[-jk]

A fiasco. The game itself is a failure, all the consequences of getting the game are a complete fiasco. Not worth it at all. In fact, I can't see that we've gained anything. Is it too late to change our minds? By which I mean change the ACC's mind?

I think we need to add four more teams, then have the original 7 or 8 (if we keep Tech - the real Tech) withdraw to form a new conference.

They do say history repeats.

Otherwise, we're stuck with it, and we can just keep grousing the way Julio does about USC leaving decades ago.

-jk

[Acymetric]

Some of these things can be fixed more easily than others. Start with putting the game in Charlotte. (And don't give me the weak excuse about weather. Football is played outdoors in Green Bay and Buffalo in January. We're talking about the South in December).

The problem is I don't even know if I have faith in the ACC to fix the easy stuff like where to have the game. And even if they do, are some teams going to actually step up? Maybe. The fun answer is "Duke could always do it!" but of course, in reality, I'm pretty sure that isn't the answer. I'm sure things will get better, but so far expansion is a net loss.

We'll see what next year holds, but we have to be getting dangerously close to losing BCS status. How often can that be reevaluated anyway? I see another BCS loss this year, and my prediction: ugly.

[throatybeard]

-jk likes the Mountain West solution, it seems.

Expansion detractors seem to have missed the fact that we'd been even more irrelevant without the three new teams. Heck, most expansion detractors didn't want FSU in the league either. The 1991 ACC wouldn't even be close to sniffing the BCS. We'd be headed either in the direction of the SWC, or in the direction of something worse than the Big East.

It's kind of silly to complain about VT when they've won the league three out of the five years they've been around. And a 4th year they lost closely to Florida State.

[hurleyfor3]

Why are we limiting the topic to the football championship game? The entire league is a failure and a fiasco.

[Duvall]

Why are we limiting the topic to the football championship game? The entire league is a failure and a fiasco.

Because I'm actually optimistic about the near-term future of ACC football. Swapping Johnson, Davis, Jagodzinski and Cutcliffe for Gailey, Bunting, Amato and Roof is a major improvement that is already showing results and should show more in the future. It's the title game that's looks to be an embarrassment for the foreseeable future.

[dukeballer2294]

First, its all about the teams, you dont see a highly hyped sec title game between Vandy and Miss St. Miami seems to be reloading talent and it looks like they will soon start another 5 year rally of championship appearances. That leaves one more team. Va tech clemson and unc all seem to have chances to be great then blow them with silly losses. FSU just seems to be getting worse. My hope is for georgia tech to be an exciting option offense team that draws peopls eye because of the rarity of that type of offense. All in all, Miami will get better in the future but in order for us to be a power we need 1 more... Duke maybe?

[footballfan2]

imagine if Virginia tech, Boston College and Miami didn't join the ACC?

Now that woould have been a joke of a football league.

[Bob Green]

imagine if Virginia tech, Boston College and Miami didn't join the ACC?

I find it extremely easy to imagine. The ACC would be a lot better off without Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami.

[footballfan2]

I find it extremely easy to imagine. The ACC would be a lot better off without Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami.


Not in football they wouldn't. The ACC wouldn't even be a BCS caliber league without these three teams. Might as well drop the ACC and add the WAC as a BCS league.

[msdukie]

I find it extremely easy to imagine. The ACC would be a lot better off without Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami.


And F$U!

[fan345678]

Without expansion, ACC football would be in the sewer by now (and if you try to make the argument that they are, Jeff Sagarin and 10 bowl committees will disagree with you).

If the ACC had made the commitment to being small-time in football (i.e.- choose not to expand), and had remained a nine-team league for the past five seasons with FSU's star dwindling, would the following have happened:
-Paul Johnson to Georgia Tech?
-Butch Davis to UNC?
-Tom O'Brien to NCSU?
and, of course,
-David Cutcliffe to Duke?

The answers are No, No, Maybe, and No. The ACC would have become a stepping stone conference for coaches and a fall back option for recruits.

Now, those who don't think football should be respected as a legitimate sport will consider this kind of post speculative, and it's a darn good thing those people aren't running the ACC.

[fan345678]

Without expansion, ACC football would be in the sewer by now (and if you try to make the argument that they are, Jeff Sagarin and 10 bowl committees will disagree with you).

If the ACC had made the commitment to being small-time in football (i.e.- choose not to expand), and had remained a nine-team league for the past five seasons with FSU's star dwindling, would the following have happened:
-Paul Johnson to Georgia Tech?
-Butch Davis to UNC?
-Tom O'Brien to NCSU?
and, of course,
-David Cutcliffe to Duke?

The answers are No, No, Maybe, and No. The ACC would have become a stepping stone conference for coaches and a fall back option for recruits.

Now, those who don't think football should be respected as a legitimate sport will consider this kind of post speculative, and it's a darn good thing those people aren't running the ACC.

of course...those people who ARE running the ACC have made the brilliant decisions to put the championship game in Florida, so maybe we're screwed after all

[footballfan2]

Now, those who don't think football should be respected as a legitimate sport will consider this kind of post speculative, and it's a darn good thing those people aren't running the ACC.

i agree with you, but how can anyone not consider football a legitimate sport? the revenue is far larger than basketball... as well as viewership and fan sport. football in this country far outstrips basketball in popularity.

[footballfan2]

of course...those people who ARE running the ACC have made the brilliant decisions to put the championship game in Florida, so maybe we're screwed after all

would you have gone if it was in NC?

Eventually Miami and FSU will rise again. in 2-3 years FSU and Miami should be top 10 teams again.

[fan345678]

i agree with you, but how can anyone not consider football a legitimate sport? the revenue is far larger than basketball... as well as viewership and fan sport. football in this country far outstrips basketball in popularity.

well, nobody will say they don't, but those who are still whining about expansion are saying it indirectly

[fan345678]

would you have gone if it was in NC?



Without a doubt, yes. I love college football and have plenty of friends in Charlotte, which is an easy drive away. I'd wear my school colors and would be proud to be in attendance.

[footballfan2]

Without a doubt, yes. I love college football and have plenty of friends in Charlotte, which is an easy drive away. I'd wear my school colors and would be proud to be in attendance.

well i love college football too. so that's why I would have gone to the UF/Alabama instead.

[Ben63]

I think the ACC championship game is a disaster but not for the reasons you all are saying, though I do agree with you. I am an advocate for ALL BCS conferences to have a championship game. It is a national championship elimination game that Ohio State, Penn State, and USC don't have to play. The Big XII and SEC have had teams well on their way to the national championship game get upset in their conference championship and cost the losing school and the conference major money for not going to the big show.

So why does the ACC insist on having this game? It hasn't happened yet, but someday their will be an unbeaten team en route to a national championship game be upset by an inferior opponent in front of a half capacity crowd. This hurts the ACC as a conference. And I'm for damn sure that it doesn't generate the revenues that the Big XII and SEC championships games get. Just to hammer home the point, I watched an Army/Navy blowout over the ACCCG. It is just a joke that the ACC plays this game every year and it will hurt them at some point.

As for why I think all BCS conferences should have a conference championship game and how I think it should be done...thats for another discussion.

[footballfan2]

I think the ACC championship game is a disaster but not for the reasons you all are saying, though I do agree with you. I am an advocate for ALL BCS conferences to have a championship game. It is a national championship elimination game that Ohio State, Penn State, and USC don't have to play. The Big XII and SEC have had teams well on their way to the national championship game get upset in their conference championship and cost the losing school and the conference major money for not going to the big show.

So why does the ACC insist on having this game? It hasn't happened yet, but someday their will be an unbeaten team en route to a national championship game be upset by an inferior opponent in front of a half capacity crowd. This hurts the ACC as a conference. And I'm for damn sure that it doesn't generate the revenues that the Big XII and SEC championships games get. Just to hammer home the point, I watched an Army/Navy blowout over the ACCCG. It is just a joke that the ACC plays this game every year and it will hurt them at some point.

As for why I think all BCS conferences should have a conference championship game and how I think it should be done...thats for another discussion.

well one of the main complaints is that the game is in FL. Right now that doesn't seem so important. But there will be a day when Miami and FSU play in it for the right to play for the BCS championship. Hopefully in 2-3 years. Besides Virginia tech I can't forsee that ever happening for any other ACC team.

Just like how the ACC basketball tournament always seems to be in NC because the NC schools dominate.... one day the Florida schools will dominate. This would also be a boone for ACC recruiting since FL is a huge talent pool.

[Ben63]

well one of the main complaints is that the game is in FL. Right now that doesn't seem so important. But there will be a day when Miami and FSU play in it for the right to play for the BCS championship. Hopefully in 2-3 years. Besides Virginia tech I can't forsee that ever happening for any other ACC team.

Just like how the ACC basketball tournament always seems to be in NC because the NC schools dominate.... one day the Florida schools will dominate. This would also be a boone for ACC recruiting since FL is a huge talent pool.

You are absolutely right, that day will come and I hope it comes sooner than later. But why have one of those two teams blow it against say Clemson or Va Tech (don't know who is in which division, but you get my point) when it could cost the school and the conference major money.

And for the recruiting point, nothing recruits better than success, and making the national championship game, win or lose, is pretty good.

[vick]

I think the ACC championship game is a disaster but not for the reasons you all are saying, though I do agree with you. I am an advocate for ALL BCS conferences to have a championship game. It is a national championship elimination game that Ohio State, Penn State, and USC don't have to play.

And yet...it looks like a one-loss SEC team is going to play a one-loss Big XII team in the national championship, while one-loss Penn State and USC watch from home, in part because OU and UF had the opportunity to impress voters (and computers) with a final-game victory over a relatively strong team. I bet Pete Carroll would be happier if USC had finished its season tonight against Oregon rather than UCLA.

I was opposed to expansion and still think it was a mistake, but I do not think that the problems with ACC football can be fixed by avoiding having the top teams play each other one more time at the end of the season.

[Ben63]

And yet...it looks like a one-loss SEC team is going to play a one-loss Big XII team in the national championship, while one-loss Penn State and USC watch from home, in part because OU and UF had the opportunity to impress voters (and computers) with a final-game victory over a relatively strong team. I bet Pete Carroll would be happier if USC had finished its season tonight against Oregon rather than UCLA.


This is exactly why ALL conferences should have a championship game. But don't even try to tell me the Pac10 or the Big10 are even CLOSE to the level of competition of the Big XII or SEC.

Hypothetically, had Penn State beaten Ohio State again in the Big 10 CG, would you put them ahead of any of the following: Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama. I would certainly hope not.

Yes USC does get screwed because they might be the best team out there, but the Pac 10 was so horrible it is tough to say whether SC was that good or their competition was that bad, or both (which I think is the case this year). This year only an unbeaten season would have them in the National Championship game.

[vick]

This is exactly why ALL conferences should have a championship game. But don't even try to tell me the Pac10 or the Big10 are even CLOSE to the level of competition of the Big XII or SEC.

Close to the Big XII? I don't think so. To the SEC? Quite possibly. Look at computer rankings, head-to-head matchups vs. other conferences (see SEC vs. ACC last week, for example), the SEC is simply not a particularly strong conference this year, and certainly not head and shoulders above the other BCS conferences.


Hypothetically, had Penn State beaten Ohio State again in the Big 10 CG, would you put them ahead of any of the following: Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama. I would certainly hope not.

It would be unlikely.

Anyway, I don't want to derail a thread about the ACC championship specifically with too much general football chatter, so I won't. But I simply don't see the case of "potential national championship team losing conference championship" being a strong argument against having them. I'll go through the years of the BCS, looking at the final standings and hoping my memory of when teams got their losses stands up, and excluding non-BCS conference teams:

1998: UT undefeated, Kansas State loses Big XII championship and falls out. Score one for your case
1999: Two undefeated teams going in
2000: The FSU-Miami debate (with Washington oddly left out of the discussion despite having beaten Miami) of one-loss teams. No championship game for any of them, although I bet Miami wishes they could have made up a little ground in the computers with a tough game...
2001: Miami undefeated, Nebraska goes to championship without playing for the conference championship. I don't think having a conference championship mattered one way or another here since Nebraska slid in anyway
2002: Two undefeated teams going in
2003: Three one-loss teams, LSU and OU (with conference championship games--and OU losing theirs!) play for national championship, USC (without one) left out
2004: Three undefeated teams, the one with the conference championship (OU) in, along with one without one (USC). Auburn with championship left out. Pretty much a wash, Auburn hurt by terrible nonconference schedule; it's hard to imagine how they would ever have gotten in
2005: Two undefeated teams going in
2006: Four one-loss teams (Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Wisconsin), the only one in a "championship" conference gets in. Can't argue with the result, but Florida beating a good Arkansas team in the SEC championship definitely helped avoid an OSU-Michigan rematch
2007: OSU and a bunch of two-loss teams (LSU, VT, OU, Georgia, Missouri, USC, WVU, Arizona State). One with a championship (LSU) gets the nod--again hard to dispute the result, but having the championship didn't hurt
2008: Uncertain, but it looks like of the one-loss teams (Alabama, OU, Texas, Florida, USC, Texas Tech, and Penn State), the two that won conference championships get to play

So that's once in eleven years (again, assuming I haven't missed one--which I certainly allow could have happened) that a championship game demonstrably hurt a conference, against several years where it might have helped (or, it might not have). At any rate, I just don't think argument that having championship games reduces the chance of a conference having teams finish in the BCS top 2 is particularly strong, based on historical evidence.

[Ben63]

Close to the Big XII? I don't think so. To the SEC? Quite possibly. Look at computer rankings, head-to-head matchups vs. other conferences (see SEC vs. ACC last week, for example), the SEC is simply not a particularly strong conference this year, and certainly not head and shoulders above the other BCS conferences.



It would be unlikely.

Anyway, I don't want to derail a thread about the ACC championship specifically with too much general football chatter, so I won't. But I simply don't see the case of "potential national championship team losing conference championship" being a strong argument against having them. I'll go through the years of the BCS, looking at the final standings and hoping my memory of when teams got their losses stands up, and excluding non-BCS conference teams:

1998: UT undefeated, Kansas State loses Big XII championship and falls out. Score one for your case
1999: Two undefeated teams going in
2000: The FSU-Miami debate (with Washington oddly left out of the discussion despite having beaten Miami) of one-loss teams. No championship game for any of them, although I bet Miami wishes they could have made up a little ground in the computers with a tough game...
2001: Miami undefeated, Nebraska goes to championship without playing for the conference championship. I don't think having a conference championship mattered one way or another here since Nebraska slid in anyway
2002: Two undefeated teams going in
2003: Three one-loss teams, LSU and OU (with conference championship games--and OU losing theirs!) play for national championship, USC (without one) left out
2004: Three undefeated teams, the one with the conference championship (OU) in, along with one without one (USC). Auburn with championship left out. Pretty much a wash, Auburn hurt by terrible nonconference schedule; it's hard to imagine how they would ever have gotten in
2005: Two undefeated teams going in
2006: Four one-loss teams (Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Wisconsin), the only one in a "championship" conference gets in. Can't argue with the result, but Florida beating a good Arkansas team in the SEC championship definitely helped avoid an OSU-Michigan rematch
2007: OSU and a bunch of two-loss teams (LSU, VT, OU, Georgia, Missouri, USC, WVU, Arizona State). One with a championship (LSU) gets the nod--again hard to dispute the result, but having the championship didn't hurt
2008: Uncertain, but it looks like of the one-loss teams (Alabama, OU, Texas, Florida, USC, Texas Tech, and Penn State), the two that won conference championships get to play

So that's once in eleven years (again, assuming I haven't missed one--which I certainly allow could have happened) that a championship game demonstrably hurt a conference, against several years where it might have helped (or, it might not have). At any rate, I just don't think argument that having championship games reduces the chance of a conference having teams finish in the BCS top 2 is particularly strong, based on historical evidence.

Points well taken. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But I still think all BCS conferences should have a championship game and if all of them do not, then none of them should have them at all. The Big 10 should add another team (what school, I have no idea) to make an even 12, the Pac 10 should add Utah and BYU (keeps the natural pairings USC/UCLA, ASU/Zona, Ore/OSU, etc) to make an even 12. This makes 5 conferences with an even 12 teams, Big East is still a mess though....but I am going farther and farther off topic, I'll stop now.

And I'm not saying I don't agree with everything already stated in this thread, but I was just suggesting another argument against the ACCCG, since it sucks anyway.

[Highlander]

Also, for those of you against expansion, keep in mind that had we not poached some of the Big East schools, it is entirely likely that the Big East could have poached some schools from the ACC like Georgia Tech, Clemson, or even FSU. IIRC, all three of those schools were considering leaving for another conference if the ACC voted not to expand. The football member schools were not happy, and sooner or later one of them would have left. It was poach or be poached.

Second point - the expansion schools have dominated the conference since they joined, so it is hard to argue that they have failed to make the conference relevant in football when it's the other schools primarily that haven't lived up to expectations. Clemson, Ga. Tech, NC State, and FSU have fewer championship game appearances COMBINED than VTech does.

Finally - Charlotte will actually host the ACC Championship game in 2010 and 2011. The next two games will be in Tampa Bay. Not sure if that's better than Jacksonville, but at least they are moving it around.

[dukemomLA]

Let's rid ourselves of the BCS nonsense. It has done nothing less than confuse things and cause adversity. Good riddance if we can eliminate this debacle before the start of next season's football.

Never been a fan of the BCS system, and as time goes on, I feel vindicated that it just doesn't work.

[rockymtn devil]

Let's rid ourselves of the BCS nonsense. It has done nothing less than confuse things and cause adversity. Good riddance if we can eliminate this debacle before the start of next season's football.

Never been a fan of the BCS system, and as time goes on, I feel vindicated that it just doesn't work.

The BCS isn't going anywhere. The people that actually make these decisions--university presidents and t.v. executives--love it and don't care what the rest of the world thinks. ESPN just paid big bucks for BCS rights. The Rose Bowl Coalition (Rose Bowl, Big 10, Pac 10) have a very lucrative contract with ABC that goes until 2014 and is independent of the rest of the BCS.

But, it's important to point out that the old system worked just as poorly, if not worse. In 1994 Penn State rolled through the Big 10 and beat up Oregon in the Rose Bowl. It was ranked #2 in the country but, under the old system, was effectively excluded from national title contention simply because of conference affiliation. It was not awarded a split national title despite being one of the best teams of its decade and, perhaps, Joe Paterno's best team ever. The old system didn't work either. At least in the current system a team like 1994 Penn State is in the equation (see 2004 Auburn).

[sagegrouse]

--School size. Four is a lot of private schools for one conference. Two have made three appearances in the game in five years, and Miami presumably will at some point.


Throaty -- are you leaving someone out?

sagegrouse

[fan345678]

You are absolutely right, that day will come and I hope it comes sooner than later. But why have one of those two teams blow it against say Clemson or Va Tech (don't know who is in which division, but you get my point) when it could cost the school and the conference major money.

And for the recruiting point, nothing recruits better than success, and making the national championship game, win or lose, is pretty good.

actually, that could result in the ACC making MORE money, since a team that goes into the title game undefeated but loses (esp. if it's Miami, FSU, VT, or Clemson) will have a great shot at landing the conference a second BCS bid that year.