PDA

View Full Version : We're in the wrong division



Olympic Fan
10-11-2009, 12:12 PM
Have you looked at the ACC standings this morning? The difference between the Coastal and Atlantic Divisions is astounding:

Atlantic:
Wake Forest 2-1 4-2
Maryland 1-1 2-4
Boston Col 2-2 4-2
Clemson 1-2 2-3
NC State 0-2 3-3
FSU 0-3 2-4

Coastal
Virginia Tech 3-0 5-1
Virginia 1-0 2-3
Ga Tech 3-1 5-1
Miami 2-1 4-1
Duke 1-1 3-3
UNC 0-2 4-2

The three best teams in the ACC -- by a wide margin -- are all in the Coastal (VPI, Miami and Ga Tech). I'm not sure who should be No. 4 -- Wake? UNC? BC? Duke?

I don't think I'm being a homer to suggest that if Duke were in the Atlantic Division, we'd have a realistic chance to play in the ACC title game (especially if that meant we'd get to replace Miami and Ga Tech on the schedule with BC and Clemson).

As it stands, Va Tech can virtually clinch the Coastal title with a win in Atlanta this coming Saturday. It won't be easy, but they already have a win over Miami, so they'd be 4-0 with the tough part of the schedule out of the way. They'd have to lose two of their last four to give Miami (or Duke) a chance. I guess Virginia would still have their fate in their hands, but I don't think they win out.

The Atlantic is a mess. I have no idea who comes out of there with the title. I just wish we were in the mix.

BTW: It's early, but the Coastal is 5-0 against the Atlantic so far this season: Miami over FSU; VPI over BC; GTech over Clemson; GTech over FSU and Duke over NC State. Hope that trend continues when we play Maryland from the Atlantic.

jimsumner
10-11-2009, 12:47 PM
Want a train-wreck scenario?

Try this on for size. VT wins the Coastal. They're 11-1, ranked in the top five nationally, maybe even top two or three.

Then they lay an egg in the ACC title game and lose to a 7-5 Wake Forest team or some such. Think BCS disaster.

Olympic Fan
10-11-2009, 02:00 PM
I don't expect it to happen, but I had an ACC official tell me that this could be the year the ACC gets two BCS bids.

The scenario would have to be that Va Tech wins out to go 11-1 ... they'd be assured of a BCS berth by winning the ACC title game -- maybe, just maybe a spot in the title game (with 11 straight wins).

The other chance is Miami. They could win out to finish 10-1 and they'd still be shut out of the ACC title game because of their loss to Virginia Tech. But with wins over Oklahoma and Georgia Tech they'd rate pretty high in the BCS standings ... high enough to get an at-large berth? It might come down to the finale against South Florida, which very well could be the Big East champ (either them or Cincinnati).

We'll have to wait for the first BCS standings to see how likely that scenario is -- a lot of other candidates for that out there. I'd like to see it happen (unless we can spoil it by beating Miami) ... to that end, I'll be pulling for:

(1) Southern Cal to win the Pac 10. Even at 9-2, the Trojans would be attractive to the BCS.
(2) Boise State and TCU to lose somewhere along the way (if there's one unbeaten non-major, they'll probably get at at large).
(3) Texas to knock Oklahoma out of the picture with a third loss.
(4) Notre Dame to lose a couple more

I'm pretty sure that the Alabama-Florida loser is going to get one of the at-large bids. By rule, a conference can only have two BCS teams. The SEC gets one for sure, but there are three others out there for grabs.

Again, not saying it's likely -- but the ACC has its best chance in years.

ikiru36
10-11-2009, 02:20 PM
Just really looking at that divisional breakdown for the 1st time. Is there any logic to the divisional set-up or was it basically a coin-flip, keeping in mind geographic and estimated current program quality balance? I imagine this has been debated before elsewhere, but if you're gonna make up divisions, isn't it more fun to at least have a geographic rivalry created (i.e. North Atlantic vs. South Atlantic). I realize that any "logical" system one creates is likely to seem unbalanced or problematic to someone, but the current setup seems pretty arbitrary. It also looks as if it breaks up some of the more interesting rivalries (i.e. NCS v. 9F and Miami v. Florida State). Just for fun, what about Public Universities (FSU, Clemson, NCS, 9F, UVA and MD) vs. Private and Tech (Miami, GT, Duke, Wake, VT, BC) schools?

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jimsumner
10-11-2009, 02:30 PM
I believe the idea was to insure that Miami and Florida State played every year in the title game.

There's simply no way to have a N-S division without breaking up the Big Four. Then again, they've already done that.

You've got four northern teams; BC, Maryland, Virginia, and VT.

Four Southern teams; Clemson, GT, Miami, and FSU. So, two of the NC teams go South, two go North. Makes as much sense as having Duke and State go years without playing each other.

How about this? BC, Maryland, Duke, UNC, NCSU, and Miami comprise the Eastern Division. Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State comprise the Western Division.

crote
10-11-2009, 04:17 PM
Here's an idea:

What if the ACC were to develop a kind of relegation system for determining divisions? Have cycles of four years. At the end of each cycle, league teams are ranked one to twelve on the basis of total conference wins over the period, most wins #1, least wins #12. All the odd ranked teams (1st, 3rd, 5th, and so on) are in one division, all the even ranked teams are in the other. For scheduling purposes, you'd play every team in your division every year, and have two year home and home series with the teams from the other division. So in years 1 and 2 of a cycle you'd play teams A, B, and C, and in year 3 and 4 you're playing home and home with D, E, and F.

The benefit is that it would correct for upward or downward trends in team performance over time and help maintain some semblance of parity between the two divisions. You'd likely have a more competitive title game and a greater shot at multiple BCS teams. Plus, no two schools would go longer than two years without playing each other.

The down side is that you'd likely have to sacrifice some traditional rivalries (or at least the guarantee that said rivalries will be played every year), and travel could be an issue depending on how the rankings pan out.

CameronBornAndBred
10-11-2009, 05:47 PM
I have no problem with our division; I like the fact that we have the likes of VT, Miami and GT standing between us and an opportunity to play in the title game. Year in and out, we are guaranteed to have one of the toughest schedules in football; we can only get better because of it. Look at our recent outing against VT, and then look at how we handled State. I think the VT game was a great game for us as a team to experience, and it showed at Carter-Finley. Having to play our best against the best the ACC has to offer shouldn't be looked on as a hinderance but instead as great opportunities that other teams would be envious of. (It can also only help in recruiting when we do well against those teams.)

throatybeard
10-11-2009, 09:47 PM
I understand plenty that the current alignment was intended to have Miami and FSU opposite each other.

What I don't understand is how that dictated the placement of the other ten schools.

verga
10-11-2009, 10:32 PM
Jim Sumner, you're hired, go ahead with your division changes. If i were you, i wouldn't even run it by Swofford, i'm sure he'll agree with you. The only thing wrong with your proposal is, it makes too much sense.

brevity
10-11-2009, 10:47 PM
Some good ideas, but I've always thought about dividing the conference into an Inner ACC (VA and NC schools) and Outer ACC (BC, MD, Clemson, GT, FSU, and Miami). For all sports. The northernmost and southernmost schools may end up traveling a bit more, but hey, they have to travel a lot anyway.

Also, setting up the conference with Miami-FSU in mind is silly and shortsighted. Especially since they play each other each year... in September.

Highlander
10-12-2009, 10:20 AM
I understand plenty that the current alignment was intended to have Miami and FSU opposite each other.

What I don't understand is how that dictated the placement of the other ten schools.

Here's how I always thought the divisions broke down:

1) FSU and Miami were put in separate divisions intentionally. In addition, their game was moved to the beginning of the season so the loser isn't screwed out of a BCS shot.

2) Duke, NC State, UNC, and Wake had to be split up, because putting all 4 in one division was considered a handicap considering how bad they all had historically been. So Duke/UNC stay together and State/Wake stay together.

3) Duke has the longest active streak in the conference of annual football games with Ga. Tech. I've always thought that played a part in GT being put into the same division with Duke. Clemson and GT are comparable usually, so put Clemson into the Atlantic to balance it out.

4) Now you're left with VT, Virginia, Maryland, and BC. They put VT and Va due to the proximity and rivalry, which pairs Maryland and BC. Since Miami and VT are rivals as well, they put VT and VA in costal and MD and BC in Atlantic. Everyone thought VT was good in football, but no one really believed they would dominate the conference annually the way they have.

Having FSU suck it up while Duke looks vastly improved definitely skews things toward the Coastal. If FSU were in the top 10, things would be a lot more balance.

allenmurray
10-12-2009, 11:00 AM
Add four more teams to the conference, it doesn't really matter who.

Then put in one division:

Duke, UNC, Maryland, NCSU, GaTech, Clemson, Virginia, and Wake Forest - I have no idea what to call it, just for kicks, maybe we could call it "The ACC" ;)

And in the other division you'd have:

Miami, VaTech, Boston College, Florida State, and 4 other randonly selected teams. A good name for it might be, "Those Other Guys".

Then, the division called "Not the ACC" could split off and form their own conference. Instead of finding 8 new teams, we'd simply stay at a reasonable number of teams, and use the division name for the ocnference name, calling the new conference, The ACC. Everybody could play everybody each year in football and the conference could have a double round robin for basketball. That would be so cool . . . I wonder if anybody has ever done anything like that?

jimsumner
10-12-2009, 11:11 AM
I'm certainly not advocating expanding.

But, while we're playing why-nots, going to 16 could solve all the problems, but only if the four new teams were ALL north of NC or ALL south of NC.

Let me explain.

Right now, the ACC has three quartets, the Big Four, the four schools south of NC, and the four schools north of NC.

Add four northern schools, bracket the Big Four with Clemson, GT, Miami, and FSU and you've got an eight-team Northern Division and an eight-team Southern Division that doesn't break up any states.

Or add four southern schools and put the Big Four in the Northern Division. Same benefits.

Of course, that would make it difficult for those of us who miss the old hoops double round-robin. 30 conference games would be a bit much, even for me. :)

Slackerb
10-12-2009, 11:34 AM
Haha....boy one stomping of a mediocre NCSU team and you're talking about contending for the divisional title?

Yes, the Atlantic is all out of wack and the results so far are crazy. But do you really think, despite records so far, that Duke would be in contention against FSU, Clemson, Wake, etc.

C'mon guys, take off the blue-tinted glasses for a sec. You've made amazing progress, but you've just won your first ACC road game in six years....

CameronBornAndBred
10-12-2009, 11:41 AM
Haha....boy one stomping of a mediocre NCSU team and you're talking about contending for the divisional title?

Yes, the Atlantic is all out of wack and the results so far are crazy. But do you really think, despite records so far, that Duke would be in contention against FSU, Clemson, Wake, etc.

C'mon guys, take off the blue-tinted glasses for a sec. You've made amazing progress, but you've just won your first ACC road game in six years....
Who in this thread said we were contending for a title?

Duvall
10-12-2009, 11:45 AM
Haha....boy one stomping of a mediocre NCSU team and you're talking about contending for the divisional title?

Yes, the Atlantic is all out of wack and the results so far are crazy. But do you really think, despite records so far, that Duke would be in contention against FSU, Clemson, Wake, etc.

C'mon guys, take off the blue-tinted glasses for a sec. You've made amazing progress, but you've just won your first ACC road game in six years....

I don't disagree, but FSU is, by all indications, worse than mediocre this year. I'm not sure yet about Clemson, but they lost to Maryland, so we'll see after Duke plays the Terps in two weeks. Wake is solid, but Duke already plays them every year and is in contention more often than not. We shall see.

Johnboy
10-12-2009, 12:14 PM
Who in this thread said we were contending for a title?

The first post in this thread said:

I don't think I'm being a homer to suggest that if Duke were in the Atlantic Division, we'd have a realistic chance to play in the ACC title game (especially if that meant we'd get to replace Miami and Ga Tech on the schedule with BC and Clemson).

Slackerb doesn't agree.

Looking at the Atlantic Division, however, I agree with Olympic Fan . . but I proudly wear Duke blue glasses.

CameronBornAndBred
10-12-2009, 12:16 PM
The first post in this thread said:


Slackerb doesn't agree.

Looking at the Atlantic Division, however, I agree with Olympic Fan . . but I proudly wear Duke blue glasses.
I need more coffee...and it's past noon. Sigh.

loran16
10-12-2009, 12:42 PM
Haha....boy one stomping of a mediocre NCSU team and you're talking about contending for the divisional title?

Yes, the Atlantic is all out of wack and the results so far are crazy. But do you really think, despite records so far, that Duke would be in contention against FSU, Clemson, Wake, etc.

C'mon guys, take off the blue-tinted glasses for a sec. You've made amazing progress, but you've just won your first ACC road game in six years....

Well we're talking about a hypothetical as if we were in a division with those teams, yes.

And well, we should have beaten Wake 3 years running, (and would have done so if not for 2 missed FGs in two of those years). This is the best Duke team yet, so a win over Wake is certainly possible...and hey look, they're on the schedule! We get to see this play out, then we can talk about it.

As for Clemson and FSU, hard to say. I think FSU is far better than the record indicates (See: The BYU Game), but they're the type of team that just overlooks teams and doesnt put forth their best effort. They could have theoretically stomped us....or could've been upset by us. Hard to tell.

I think Clemson would beat us. But it'd be close.

Remember Slackerb, this is after holding VT close as well, not just the NC State win.

Devil in the Blue Dress
10-12-2009, 12:54 PM
Haha....boy one stomping of a mediocre NCSU team and you're talking about contending for the divisional title?

Yes, the Atlantic is all out of wack and the results so far are crazy. But do you really think, despite records so far, that Duke would be in contention against FSU, Clemson, Wake, etc.

C'mon guys, take off the blue-tinted glasses for a sec. You've made amazing progress, but you've just won your first ACC road game in six years....

There will always be those who doubt because of the longstanding difficulties associated with Duke football. I like stepping back and looking at the gains made this season rather than overgeneralizing from each individual game. Right now it's not even about whether Duke is in the running for a divisional title. It's about regaining respect and building confidence in solid, consistent play.

I've been saying that Duke will surprise some people this year..... they have already and have a few more surprises to reveal before the season is over.

There's still time to buy into the program and show up at the games!

throatybeard
10-12-2009, 05:11 PM
I'm just one man, but I find continued bellyaching about expansion extremely tiresome. It's done. It's not getting undone for a long long time.*

But, a thought experiment I've had is what if Georgia Tech, Tulane, and South Carolina had all stayed in their respective conferences during that 1966-71 era.

The SEC would have had 12 teams, and no reason to expand. Since 12 has become the optimal number by writ of the NCAA (you get a FB championship game, but at least all your BB teams can still play at least once), perhaps they'd have stuck.

The ACC would have gotten to 9 teams in the FSU expansion, but probably still would have been hunting for 3 more by the 21st Century. With Tulane, the SEC would have two Vanderbilts, two fewer states (no AR or SC), and be slightly less of a juggernaut.

With no room in the SEC beyond 12, does the SWC still break up? I guess this depends on whether Arkansas leaving was a symptom or a cause. It might still have broken up. And if the SWC doesn't break up, the Big 8 doesn't become the Big XII. West of the ACC, there could be some pretty big consequences.

Other than the GT for USC swap, it might not have changed the ACC much. Miami always would have been a target. Virginia Tech makes historical sense. (VT and WVU were considered in the 1950s, but thought too remote). Syracuse would have gotten some talk, and I guess BC too, since it happened.

Another one I think about is what if the ACC had managed to get Penn State before the Big 10 did.

Expansion has sort of brought a distinction, never clearly made, into view: is the ACC a "Southern" conference or an "Eastern" conference? Early expansion seemed to have answered the question--it's a Southern conference with Maryland glued on. (And even Maryland was historically Southern). GT's in GA, FSU in the culturally Southern part of Florida.

The 2003 expansion raised more questions about that distinction. It's now a sprawling 1500-mile mess is what it is. While VT is in the South, all three new schools have some non-Southern features. BC isn't Southern at all, VT has a lot of students from Boswashnia, and Miami is Miami.

An interesting direction, not taken, would have been a sort of Mid-Atlantic conference, with both Virginia schools, Maryland, and the four North Carolina schools, plus maybe Penn State, West Virginia, and still Clemson (10), and maybe two of East Carolina, Rutgers, Temple if they hadn't fallen apart. Except for Clemson, this is a fairly compact swath from Winston-Salem to Jersey, contained mostly between or among I-81 and I-95.



* - I believe energy austerity will eventually force American sport to get more regional, but that's a PPB issue.

hurleyfor3
10-12-2009, 05:38 PM
I think the "Mid-Atlantic ACC" would have been a real possibility. Don't ignore Pitt, which was a dynamo in football in the 1970s and early 1980s and which was independent in that sport well into the 1990s. (They weren't too bad in hoops in the 1980s, either.) They were very ripe for the taking. So was Syracuse. There you have it.

What do you think the Big East would have looked like under this scenario? Would it have still expanded into the Midwest, perhaps going after ND in football itself? Would it have made the move that it did to beef up its football offerings? Would it have (more explicitly at least) made a run at Maryland? As disjointed as you make the ACC out to be today -- and I don't disagree with you there -- the Big East is worse. But what would it have looked like otherwise, other than smaller?

throatybeard
10-12-2009, 10:09 PM
I think the "Mid-Atlantic ACC" would have been a real possibility. Don't ignore Pitt, which was a dynamo in football in the 1970s and early 1980s and which was independent in that sport well into the 1990s. (They weren't too bad in hoops in the 1980s, either.) They were very ripe for the taking. So was Syracuse. There you have it.

What do you think the Big East would have looked like under this scenario? Would it have still expanded into the Midwest, perhaps going after ND in football itself? Would it have made the move that it did to beef up its football offerings? Would it have (more explicitly at least) made a run at Maryland? As disjointed as you make the ACC out to be today -- and I don't disagree with you there -- the Big East is worse. But what would it have looked like otherwise, other than smaller?

Yeah, totally. I almost listed Pitt, which is really no further west than WVU, 75 miles north. And they'd have made a die-hard rivalry pair if they came in. And, AND, the Pitt-PSU rivalry would have been preserved. And maybe the PSU-Syracuse rivalry.

The BE is more disjointed than us, I think because what they are--and have been for 20 years--is a two-headed monster: mainly a core of Catholic/Jesuuit schools with a light FB presence and big-time BB, that saw the writing on the wall around 1990 and realized they needed to get with the football program and awkwardly glue themselves to some FB schools like VT, WVU and Miami. This was survival. So too their moves after we stole VT/BC/Miami The BE has been able to survive--that's all. But they've never had a consistent identity like the SEC, the BigTeleven, the Pac10, or even to a lesser extent like the Big8+Lone Star State or the ACC.

What the neverending expansion-caterwaulers around here don't seem to get is that outside NC, KY and maybe NY and IN, FB matters more than BB. Pretty much everywhere else. Fortunately, the ACC had just enough FB identity with Clemson and with UVA's, UNC's and Maryland's pretensions, and the addition of GT and FSU to remain viable through the 1990s, w/r/t TV contracts. Especially FSU. I think some folks get how important FSU was to us in the 90s, even if they've gotten mediocre recently. In the 90s, our ACC8 powerhouse, Clemson, was mostly down. Tech crashed after their MNC in 1990. Maryland had a great 80s and a horrible 90s. We were so close to irrelevance in FB. Carolina had some nice years with Mack Brown...who then left for a real FB school.

Life is a bunch of tradeoffs. What we have now isn't so bad. But I remain tantalized by the idea of a Mid-Atlantic ACC. This, of course, reflects my own biases. I just like Penn State, Pitt, WVU and VT more than I like Florida schools or GT.

The BE is in a bind. Had they not moved in a FB direction, they'd be a "mid-major" (whatever that means) in BB (lacking the newest six schools). Like the Atlantic 10. And their WBB, which I respect, is great. And if they hadn't stolen a few CUSA schools after we plundered them, they'd be nonexistent in FB. So to answer H4Three's question, I think they'd have been forced to give up on FB and gone back to their 1980s BB identity.

As to the question posed by the OP, I would say give two Big4 schools to the South and two to the North and stop acting like that's a huge problem. Is UK east of Auburn? I'm not sure without looking up coordinates, but the SEC has some schools close to the SEC Meridian. They handled it by giving UTK to Bama as a permanent partner and UGA to Auburn. And Florida to LSU for some reason, the tropical schools.

I think the ACC would be fine with a 5-2-1 scheme in FB rather than a 5-1-2 scheme. So currently, Duke plays Wake and only Wake every year from the other division. All problems solved by giving us State as the second permanent and Wake to UNC as their second permanent. Then you get something like this.

(two dedicated partners instead of one)

FB North:
Boston College (Miami, GT who they used to play some before ACC)
Virginia Tech (Clemson, GT--other engineering dominant schools)
Virginia (Clemson, FSU)
Maryland (Clemson as 80s FB rival and FSU more recent)
North Carolina (NC State, WFU)
Duke (NC State, WFU)

FB South:
NC State (UNC, Duke)
Wake Forest (Duke, UNC)
Clemson (Maryland, UVA)
Georgia Tech (VT, BC)
Florida State (Maryland, UVA)
Miami (VT, BC -- BE ties)

UVA is the only one that doesn't have compelling opposite division ties, but they do get two ACC9 opponents. Most of the ACC8 get to play who they always did. Or give VT BC as their second and give GT to UVA. It doesn't matter much.

You don't really need divisions in BB (even though the SEC uses them). So you handle the dedicated opps in a salt-to-taste manner. The basic constraint is that you have to play 5 teams twice and 6 teams once. You could have 5 dedicateds and 6 once-a-years. No big deal.

killerleft
10-13-2009, 11:26 AM
Haha....boy one stomping of a mediocre NCSU team and you're talking about contending for the divisional title?

Yes, the Atlantic is all out of wack and the results so far are crazy. But do you really think, despite records so far, that Duke would be in contention against FSU, Clemson, Wake, etc.

C'mon guys, take off the blue-tinted glasses for a sec. You've made amazing progress, but you've just won your first ACC road game in six years....

"You've made amazing progress...". LOL, thanks. And that's just after 18 games. Given that the best is yet to come (would you disagree?), I think Cut should push for Duke in the SEC, right?:D

Seriously, nobody really would expect a divisional title. WE are just realistically looking ahead to a much more enjoyable ride than we've been on in a long time.

But if you think Duke's goal is anything less than ACC titles, you'd better think again. First you dream, then you plan...

arnie
10-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Well we're talking about a hypothetical as if we were in a division with those teams, yes.

And well, we should have beaten Wake 3 years running, (and would have done so if not for 2 missed FGs in two of those years). This is the best Duke team yet, so a win over Wake is certainly possible...and hey look, they're on the schedule! We get to see this play out, then we can talk about it.

As for Clemson and FSU, hard to say. I think FSU is far better than the record indicates (See: The BYU Game), but they're the type of team that just overlooks teams and doesnt put forth their best effort. They could have theoretically stomped us....or could've been upset by us. Hard to tell.

I think Clemson would beat us. But it'd be close.

Remember Slackerb, this is after holding VT close as well, not just the NC State win.


It's hard to believe, but in this decade 2000-2009, we have won a total of 5 ACC football games. Additionally, we have not beaten any team more than once. I knew it was bad, just didn't realize how bad until I researched it. If Cut can pull it out against Maryland, it will be the first time we win back to back ACC games since the 1990s! Thankfully, the Alleva/Franks/Roof days are behind us.

Highlander
10-14-2009, 11:02 AM
It's hard to believe, but in this decade 2000-2009, we have won a total of 5 ACC football games. Additionally, we have not beaten any team more than once. I knew it was bad, just didn't realize how bad until I researched it. If Cut can pull it out against Maryland, it will be the first time we win back to back ACC games since the 1990s! Thankfully, the Alleva/Franks/Roof days are behind us.

How bad is it that I can name all 5 games off the top of my head?
Clemson (late FG won it)
Georgia Tech (the game that got Roof the job)
UNC (close one that we pulled out in the end)
Virginia (last year, close first half, blowout in 2nd)
State (last week)

I thought the '4 wrongs make a right' win at UVA was early this decade, but I guess it was 1999.

Surprisingly missing from that list - Wake Forest. Last win vs. them was 1999 IIRC when Duke exploded in the first 10 min of the game and scored 35 points or something, then held on to win by around 7. Maryland we don't play every year, but I know we beat them in 1994 with Robert "the bowling ball" Baldwin, but not sure since then.

FSU, Miami, BC, and VT we have never beaten since they joined the ACC.

I think most of this is right, but my memory may be fading.

patentgeek
10-14-2009, 11:18 AM
and further document the struggles of Duke football since Spurrier, last fall the N&O had a feature before the VT-FSU game about Bowden and Beamer having the highest winning percentages in ACC play of any ACC FB coaches in history. A table accompanying the article listed the top 10 coaches in ACC winning percentage, and another table listed the worst 10 coaches in ACC winning percentage. If I recall correctly, some poor UVA coach had the lowest percentage, but Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 were all Duke coaches, and in fact were the four Duke coaches between Spurrier and Cutcliffe (Wilson, Goldmsith, Franks and Roof). That speaks volumes about the miserable state of the program over the last 20 years (until last Saturday:)).

Acymetric
10-14-2009, 11:19 AM
I thought the '4 wrongs make a right' win at UVA was early this decade, but I guess it was 1999.


What happened in that game for it to be called that?

Devil in the Blue Dress
10-14-2009, 11:42 AM
and further document the struggles of Duke football since Spurrier, last fall the N&O had a feature before the VT-FSU game about Bowden and Beamer having the highest winning percentages in ACC play of any ACC FB coaches in history. A table accompanying the article listed the top 10 coaches in ACC winning percentage, and another table listed the worst 10 coaches in ACC winning percentage. If I recall correctly, some poor UVA coach had the lowest percentage, but Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 were all Duke coaches, and in fact were the four Duke coaches between Spurrier and Cutcliffe (Wilson, Goldmsith, Franks and Roof). That speaks volumes about the miserable state of the program over the last 20 years (until last Saturday:)).
I was there and remember all those down years, but I choose to focus on all that's right this year. This isn't about viewing through tinted glasses. It's about adopting a new outlook: positive and energized for each game. The tailgate parties on Oct. 24 can be a celebration of the State game and preparation for the Maryland game!

Listen carefully when Coach Cutcliffe speaks. He never talks about bad streaks or losing. When I realized this, I dropped the traditions/thinking built around the 50 - loss to Carolina and other such thinking. Just as the team is forging a new identity, so must the fans!

Highlander
10-14-2009, 01:26 PM
What happened in that game for it to be called that?

I google'd Duke UVA overtime football 1999 and lo and behold, found a link to DBR...

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=15466


"Duke returned the ensuing kickoff to their own 30 yard line. Then Romine had a pair of 20 yard passes to get the Blue Devils into UVA territory. Duke had a couple running plays
and a pass interference call on UVA to move within the UVA 10 yard line with 14 seconds to go. What happened next was THE MOST AMAZING PLAY I HAVE EVER SEEN.
Romine hiked the ball, and pitched it to Duke’s fullback. However, the fullback misjudged the pitch and fumbled the ball. Another Duke player (the running back I think), picked up
the ball and hurled it towards the endzone just as he was tackled by 2 UVA linemen. One of Duke’s receivers lunged for the ball at the two yard line, caught it, turned around, and
dove into the endzone just as he was tackled by a UVA player. TOUCHDOWN!!"

Play was designed to be a RB double reverse IIRC.
1) Fullback lined up in wrong spot
2) Fullback fumbled
3) Running Back supposed to run a reverse
4) Receiver ran wrong route.

Result = Touchdown Duke.