PDA

View Full Version : I-A Football Records in the 2000s



throatybeard
07-25-2009, 08:26 PM
These records are from Phil Steele's magazine, and exclude 1999-season bowls played in January 2000. I'm using current conference alignments.

ACC
Virginia Tech 89-29
Miami 83-29
Boston College 80-35
Florida State 78-38
Clemson 70-42
Georgia Tech 70-45
Virginia 62-50
NC State 60-51
Wake 56-53
North Carolina 45-63
Duke 14-90

Comments:
1) This really does throw the insane magnitude of our struggles into relief.
2) Jim Grobe is doing a hell of a job given Wake Forest's limitations.
3) Despite the meteor, Phillip Rivers, State really hasn't been much better this decade than historically. It was just this decade that they got their all-time win percentage over .500.
4) For a big state school with a massive fundraising operation, Carolina really has been a waste of space in football.

and most importantly

5) As I keep reiterating, people who are still kvetching about expansion on the the football side--that it failed because it didn't make us into the Big 12 or SEC--are way way off. The comparison point is where we would have been w/o those three schools, not where we are relative to the SEC. ACC-9's records might have been a little higher without expansion because people wouldn't have been receiving beat-downs from VT, instead opting for another game against East Barbecue Tech. But the clear fact is that VT is the strongest program in the league right now. In 2003 people were complaining that they weren't really that good at football, merely a 2-year Vick phenomenon. That couldn't be more wrong: they've won three of the five ACCCGs and played in a fourth. The three newest schools all have the best records this decade, and FSU, the previous expansion target, is fourth.

SEC
Georgia 90-26
LSU 90-27
Florida 87-29
Auburn 80-34
Tennessee 76-38
Alabama 65-48
Arkansas 63-49
South Carolina 61-48
Ole Mess 54-54
Kentucky 43-64
Mississippi State 37-69
Vanderbilt 32-73

comments:
1) Houston Nutt is a pretty darn good coach. He won reasonably often at Arkansas, and now he's rehabilitating Orgeron's recruits at Ole Mess--a preseason top 10 ranking in his second year.
2) Tennessee and Alabama, two of the historical power programs in the league, have had some real ups and downs this decades if you look at their season records
3) Vanderbilt makes us look really bad. 18 more wins in the decade in a much harder conference.

and most interestingly:

4) The top, a virtual tie between Georgia, Florida, and LSU. Now, I knew Richt was doing a good job, and I know that there's no way Georgia fans wouldn't swap for the resume of either of the other two (two NCs in the decade, and Florida's record at the Cocktail Party). But Richt has done a pretty superb job himself.

Big XII
Oklahoma 102-19
Texas 97-18
Texas Tech 76-39
Nebraksa 74-40
Kansas State 65-48
Missouri 62-49
Oklahoma State 58-52
Texas A&M 57-52
Colorado 55-58
Kansas 52-46
Iowa State 48-62
Baylor 30-74

comments:
1) Add Baylor to the list of folks demonstrating how much of an outlier Duke has been.
2) Everyone acts like Nebraska has completely imploded, and they're not what they were, but the school that has really tanked is Colorado. A&M has been a mess since Slocum left, but I was surprised to see Colorado below them.
3) Texas and Oklahoma are incredible. Just incredible.

Midwesterners who can't Count
Ohio State 91-23
Michigan 76-36
Wisconsin 76-40
Iowa 69-43
Penn State 66-44
Purdue 62-50
Minnesota 56-55
Michigan State 54-55
Northwestern 53-56
Illinois 42-64
Indiana 35-70

comments
1) How bout we schedule IU sometime? A BCS team we might could beat. I bet that was the thinking with KU but then they went and got good.
2) I knew OSU was better than Michigan this decade, but 14 GB surprised me
3) Michigan State is the Carolina of the Big Ten. Big School, tremendous giving, lots of success in basketball, huge underachiever in FB.
4) That's right, Northwestern is almost .500. Of all the comparables making us look bad, NU might be the best.

The Big East Records are a bit deceptive. VT/BC/Miami moved from a decent conference to a decent conference. But the BE expanders can be argued to have moved up, leaving the weaker teams in CUSA, so their records earlier in the decade may look a bit high, maybe, I don't know, compared to if expansion fever had gripped 2000 instead of 2003.

Big East
Louisville 79-33
West Virginia 77-35
South Florida 67-39
Cincinnati 66-47
Pittsburgh 64-46
Connecticut 54-53
Rutgers 49-59
Syracuse 42-65
Temple 25-79

comments:
1) Cincinnati surprised me, but they've been really good the last 2 years.
2) Schiano has really lifted RU out of the crapper.
3) USF is pretty amazing too. USF didn't even play football until 1996.

Pacific 10
Southern California 93-22
Oregon State 72-40
Oregon 67-33
California 63-48
Arizona State 61-50
UCLA 60-51
Washington State 56-52
Arizona 41-64
Washington 44-64
Stanford 39-64

comments:
1) Yeah, that's right, Southern Cal actually had two bad seasons to start the decade.
2) Wait, what? Oregon State not only has the second most wins of the "nine dwarves," but somehow they've played a full season's worth more games (twelve) than Oregon has? I'm wondering if this is a typo in the magazine.
3) Stanford is really making us...never mind.
4) Sad what's happened to Washington recently.

Duke-comparables, neighbors, and non-BCS schools of note
Boise State 98-17
Texas Christian 83-28
Utah 76-33
Hawaii 74-44
Brigham Young 70-42
Notre Dame 64-49
US Air Force Academy 60-49
US Naval Academy 54-55
East Carolina 50-60
Rice 44-62
Tulane 39-67
Temple 20-79
US Military Academy 20-65

comments:
1) I don't care what conference they play in, Boise State is really good, and they've done it with two different coaches. Four 1-loss seasons and an undefeated one.
2) See above, but with "TCU" and "pretty good."
3) Even Rice makes...never mind.
4) Paul Johnson is really something. Navy's number is really skewed by three horrific seasons at the beginning of the decade. 30 of the 55 losses were in those three seasons, the last of which was Johnson's first. Hopefully Niumatalolo can keep it up.

Bob Green
07-25-2009, 10:29 PM
But the clear fact is that VT is the strongest program in the league right now.

Since joining the ACC, Virginia Tech is 0-3 versus SEC teams:

2004: VT 13 - Auburn 16
2006: VT 24 - Georgia 31
2007: VT 7 - LSU 48

They've also lost to Southern Cal (13-24) and Kansas (21-24) in the 2004 BCA Classic and 20007 Orange Bowl respectively.

Perhaps Virginia Tech's win-loss record is more a reflection of playing a weak ACC conference schedule than evidence of them being a strong football team.

I desire to see the ACC become more competitive in football, but I really hope it is the traditional ACC schools that step up and win on the national level. It would be fantastic to see the Big Four rise to the occasion and beat up on the expansion football schools.

throatybeard
07-25-2009, 11:30 PM
None of the above refutes what I was saying, even tho you frame it as a rebuttal. I never said VT's record was equivalent to UF. The small sample size of VT losses to SEC teams includes an NC team and a team that went 13-O. Plus, we can hope the ACC-7 carry the banner for the ACC, but it's not particularly realistic, given State's .500 history, UVA & UNC's mediocrity, and two teeny private schools. You can cheer for CU & UMd over VT all you wanna, but it doesn't rebut the idea that VT was a good add in FB.

Bob Green
07-26-2009, 01:36 AM
None of the above refutes what I was saying, even tho you frame it as a rebuttal.

You are correct in that my post falls short as a rebuttal of your position that expansion was a good move.


Plus, we can hope the ACC-7 carry the banner for the ACC, but it's not particularly realistic, given State's .500 history, UVA & UNC's mediocrity, and two teeny private schools. You can cheer for CU & UMd over VT all you wanna, but it doesn't rebut the idea that VT was a good add in FB.

Again, you are correct. Odds are the ACC-7 will not beat up on VT, Miami, BC and FSU in football, but the odds will not stop me from pulling for Duke, WF, State, Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, and Maryland when they play VT, Miami, BC, and FSU.

I would add Georgia Tech to the list and make it the ACC-8. Georgia Tech joined the ACC at a time we desperately needed an 8th team. I'm forever beholden to the Yellow Jackets.

My bottom line position is expansion was a bad move by the ACC. The pathetic attendance at the ACC Championship Games is a strong indication of the level of success the ACC is achieving as a Football Conference. So on this expansion topic we will just have to agree to disagree.

However, like you, I'm excited that football season is rapidly approaching as I love the game and look forward to rooting Duke to victory this season.

brevity
07-26-2009, 02:18 AM
I'm of the opinion that most things in life should be like college basketball, and that of course includes college football.

I wonder if ACC Football would become more relevant nationally if there were an 8-team playoff. Right now it seems as though the ACC (and the Big East) only aspire to a 10-2 record and a lesser BCS bowl game. But given a chance to ascend the conference hierarchy, would an ACC team capitalize?

calltheobvious
07-26-2009, 03:19 PM
I'm of the opinion that most things in life should be like college basketball, and that of course includes college football.

I wonder if ACC Football would become more relevant nationally if there were an 8-team playoff. Right now it seems as though the ACC (and the Big East) only aspire to a 10-2 record and a lesser BCS bowl game. But given a chance to ascend the conference hierarchy, would an ACC team capitalize?

I can understand why it might look that way (for the most fleeting of moments), as it seems that most years this decade, that's the best a team from either of those leagues has fared. But do you really believe that teams in those leagues "only aspire to a 10-2 record and a lesser BCS game"? I can guarantee you that's never VT's mindset, nor was it the case at WVU after Pat White took over as the starter.

If anything, it seems more likely that that would be the mind-set of a strong SEC school that still can't realistically hope to get through that briar patch of a league undefeated (pop quiz: how many of the SEC's four BCS championship teams this decade have gone undefeated? Answer: zero. Auburn was the last to do it, in 2004; UA in 1992 and UT in 1998 are the only teams to do it and make it to the promised land since expansion in 1992.)

fan345678
07-26-2009, 05:04 PM
You are correct in that my post falls short as a rebuttal of your position that expansion was a good move.

My bottom line position is expansion was a bad move by the ACC. The pathetic attendance at the ACC Championship Games is a strong indication of the level of success the ACC is achieving as a Football Conference. So on this expansion topic we will just have to agree to disagree.




The ACC Championship game has failed largely because the last two years, it's been held in Jacksonville and Tampa on a week's notice for teams from Boston and Blacksburg who don't have significant Florida fan bases.

With the SEC holding the game in Atlanta, they are guaranteed of having a good chunk of each school's fan bases either in residence or in pretty easy driving distance, no matter the school (except maybe Arkansas). If the ACC had been in Charlotte or DC the last two years, you'd have seen a stadium full or maroon shirts, not blue seats.

The ACC rolled the dice by putting the championship game at its geographic extremity, and they got snake eyes. VT playing BC in Tampa is akin to Vandy playing Arkansas in Orlando.

Also, of those listed teams to which VT lost, there were actually two national champions (USC '04, LSU '07) and another undefeated (Auburn '04).

Wander
07-26-2009, 08:28 PM
Something that jumps out at me is the really good job coaches have done in the Big East. Louisville, WVU, Rutgers, and USF have all overachieved relative to their tradition recently.

It really is hard to describe just how bad Duke was over the decade. The only quasi-comparable stat I can think of, just in the sense of "How can a BCS school be this terrible?", is Northwestern never making the NCAA tournament.

fan345678
07-27-2009, 12:23 AM
With the SEC holding the game in Atlanta, they are guaranteed of having a good chunk of each school's fan bases either in residence or in pretty easy driving distance, no matter the school (except maybe Arkansas).

Additionally, the SEC is divided east-west, with four of the East Division teams actually being located east of the championship site and another on basically the same line of longitude. For the ACC, only one team has been south of the championship site and another is on roughly the same latitude as Jacksonville, and there is no geographical divide between divisions.

Likewise, the Big 12 is divided north-south, so no matter where the championship game is held on their rotating schedule, at least one team will be moderately close.

throatybeard
07-29-2009, 02:08 PM
Good points about the geography.

The relative success or failure of the ACCCG is immaterial. First, because it is extra revenue the conference didn't previously have. It would be nice if more people were at it. But it still generates more revenue than we had before we didn't have it. It's not like ABC is refusing to televise it.

Second, and far more importantly, the ACCCG isn't really the goal of expansion, even though it was discussed a lot at the time. The goal of expansion is to remain a viable big-time conference in the eyes of the BCS. An eight-team conference a la ACC-8, anchored by Georgia Tech and Clemson, might not cut it. Expansion was a survival move. If someone gets cut next time the contract gets re-negotiated, it'll be the BE, not us.

All this hating on the new schools just seems to me short-sighted and immature. If we needed Georgia Tech at the time we got them, we desperately needed Florida State at the time of their entry. They paid of with two national titles and a host of other top 5 finishes. Luckily for us, the new schools came along just as Florida State was becoming merely above-average instead of perennial top ten. If Miami can get their act together, and if VT can eliminate that one awful loss a year they always seem to have, we're back in business. Of course, we'll still never be the SEC. That's just how it is.

In twenty or thirty years, the new schools' membership will feel just as natural as those of GT and FSU now. It's time to stop being petty about them now.

bill brill
07-29-2009, 03:51 PM
throaty -- a couple of these just don't add up. oklahoma played 121 games, kansas 98? hawaii 118, temple 99? even worse, because the ducks have been good -- usc 115, oregon 100? I do think the premise is accurate, however. bb

throatybeard
07-29-2009, 07:21 PM
You're absolutely right, BB. The one that first struck me was Oregon vs Oregon St in games played. It may be that Steele needs better copy editors. I did add up the season records on a few teams and they did reach the reported total, like UO and OSU. If I have some more time with the net (and not attempting to do this on my cell) I'll try to crosscheck these with cfbdatawarehouse.com

RelativeWays
07-29-2009, 07:38 PM
I really thing the ACCCG should be held in Charlotte, not Tampa or Jacksonville, not Boston or DC. The SEC game is held in the Georgia Dome, in pretty much the heart of SEC country, not the periphery. Like it or not, the heart of the ACC are the NC schools and the once in the immediate vicinity (UVA, Clemson) and GT and UMD are not that far either and have history with the other teams. VT is fitting in fairly nicely if you ask me, its proximity to the NC schools and its natural heated rivaly with UVA make it a good addition. BC is sadly irrelevant in my mind, and I'd trade BC for USC (gamecocks) in a heartbeat. SC is ill fitting in the SEC, they're like the bratty child that everyone ignores and nobody has to pay attention to. In the ACC, SC has hatred for Clemson, hatred for UNC, history with the other original members, its a better deal. BC's problem is they have solid teams but a small fanbase (and nobody in Boston or NE cares about them). SC has a passionate large fanbase, but they aren't consistently good at anything. It might help them if they moved back. I'd let BC go back to the big east, the NE sports market is insignificant as far as the ACC should care because they only care about the pro teams.

fan345678
07-29-2009, 10:48 PM
Good points about the geography.

The relative success or failure of the ACCCG is immaterial. First, because it is extra revenue the conference didn't previously have. It would be nice if more people were at it. But it still generates more revenue than we had before we didn't have it. It's not like ABC is refusing to televise it.

Second, and far more importantly, the ACCCG isn't really the goal of expansion, even though it was discussed a lot at the time. The goal of expansion is to remain a viable big-time conference in the eyes of the BCS. An eight-team conference a la ACC-8, anchored by Georgia Tech and Clemson, might not cut it. Expansion was a survival move. If someone gets cut next time the contract gets re-negotiated, it'll be the BE, not us.



So true, but too many people ***ahem...DBR front page...ahem*** can't seem to figure this out. If we're having a tough time selling a TV contract with 12 teams, imagine how tough it would have been with 9!!! It's not news that the ACC is leveraging basketball to get a better TV contract. That should be a given. If VT or Miami had won a couple national titles since expansion, there's still no way the ACC would be anywhere near the SEC's TV contract for football alone, even if the economy hadn't tanked between the SEC's deal and the ACC's.

Expansion kept the ACC from being a conference with only one marketable product.

Moreover, I'd argue that the "TV market" issue in expansion helps much more with basketball than football. How many ACC football games are on in Miami and Boston on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday?

throatybeard
07-31-2009, 05:30 PM
So true, but too many people ***ahem...DBR front page...ahem*** can't seem to figure this out. If we're having a tough time selling a TV contract with 12 teams, imagine how tough it would have been with 9!!! It's not news that the ACC is leveraging basketball to get a better TV contract. That should be a given. If VT or Miami had won a couple national titles since expansion, there's still no way the ACC would be anywhere near the SEC's TV contract for football alone, even if the economy hadn't tanked between the SEC's deal and the ACC's.

Expansion kept the ACC from being a conference with only one marketable product.

Moreover, I'd argue that the "TV market" issue in expansion helps much more with basketball than football. How many ACC football games are on in Miami and Boston on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday?

Good points, especially about the timing of the contracts.

We do get, I dunno, maybe four TH night games.