ACC Football is a Joke!

[Kane]

Our wonderful ACC commish, a UNC grad, sold out the ACC for the love of money and damaged our entire basketball tradition, rivalry and match-ups . . . where we used to play each team twice which was "fair and balanced" . . . now for instance we may play teams only once on their court or once on ours which STINKS!

All under the pretense of making ACC a stronger football conference (a.k.a. make a lot of bucks for the ACC) and let's be fair, the experiment has turned out horrible! Instead of lifting up football in the ACC, it damaged both football and basketball and the commish isn't being held accountable.

You could compile a team comprised of SEC "water boys" and beat any team in the ACC in football . . . it's a joke! And it was all done for money . . . when money rules and brains don't this is what you get. Live and learn!

Can we at least stop all the ACC football spin and just be honest? In football, the ACC is a second tier conference.

[wolfpackdevil]

Our wonderful ACC commish, a UNC grad, sold out the ACC for the love of money and damaged our entire basketball tradition, rivalry and match-ups . . . where we used to play each team twice which was "fair and balanced" . . . now for instance we may play teams only once on their court or once on ours which STINKS!

All under the pretense of making ACC a stronger football conference (a.k.a. make a lot of bucks for the ACC) and let's be fair, the experiment has turned out horrible! Instead of lifting up football in the ACC, it damaged both football and basketball and the commish isn't being held accountable.

You could compile a team comprised of SEC "water boys" and beat any team in the ACC in football . . . it's a joke! And it was all done for money . . . when money rules and brains don't this is what you get. Live and learn!

Can we at least stop all the ACC football spin and just be honest? In football, the ACC is a second tier conference.



This is a post that you would find on a UNC or an NC State fan board. Just delete this post while you still can. This was very poor, negative and didn't provide a way to fix it.

[rtnorthrup]

Ah yes, the infamous "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Because many ACC football schools have dropped in quality after expansion, expansion must be the cause.

[sagegrouse]

Also, it's the pot calling the kettle black. Duke fans have no occasion to complain about the quality of ACC football.

sagegrouse

[Vincetaylor]

Our wonderful ACC commish, a UNC grad, sold out the ACC for the love of money and damaged our entire basketball tradition, rivalry and match-ups . . . where we used to play each team twice which was "fair and balanced" . . . now for instance we may play teams only once on their court or once on ours which STINKS!

All under the pretense of making ACC a stronger football conference (a.k.a. make a lot of bucks for the ACC) and let's be fair, the experiment has turned out horrible! Instead of lifting up football in the ACC, it damaged both football and basketball and the commish isn't being held accountable.

You could compile a team comprised of SEC "water boys" and beat any team in the ACC in football . . . it's a joke! And it was all done for money . . . when money rules and brains don't this is what you get. Live and learn!

Can we at least stop all the ACC football spin and just be honest? In football, the ACC is a second tier conference.

You speak the truth. A lot of people on this board can't handle the truth though. Basketball has definitely suffered post-expansion. Other than UNC, the conference's tourney performance has been a total joke since 2004.

[whereinthehellami]

All football conferences are a joke, just for different reasons. The SEC is head and shoulders above the rest but they have sold their souls to get there.

The future of football in the ACC looks good to me, especially the coastal division which could be one the toughest divisions in all of college football over the next couple of seasons. GT, VT, Miami, and UNC all could contend for the division champ next season. And Duke is heading in the right direction. UVA just hired a coach that has got UVA excited and some other schools nervous.

[Highlander]

You speak the truth. A lot of people on this board can't handle the truth though. Basketball has definitely suffered post-expansion. Other than UNC, the conference's tourney performance has been a total joke since 2004.

And the Conference's Tourney performance was so wonderful pre 2004? Seriously? Other than Duke and UNC, the ACC has had a grand total of 4 Final Four appearances in the last 25 years (2 GT, 2 MD). No one else in the conference has ever done anything in the big dance in that time, save the occasional sweet 16 apperance. The ACC has always hung its hat on Duke and UNC's postseason success. The only change is that since 2004, UNC has continued and improved it's tourney performances while Duke has noticeably fallen off. I don't think Duke's lack of a serious title contender has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that we don't have a home and home series with Clemson and UVA anymore. As a conference, the league got six at large bids last year (1 automatic), so I don't think we've 'suffered' from expansion, as that never happened pre-expansion.

As for ACC football, the problem the league has is that since FSU's return to mediocrity, it is now filled with mediocre teams who can't break away from the pack. The SEC always has at least one or two undefeated teams in November. The ACC never does. Plus, seeing division champions GT and Clemson lose to middle of the road SEC teams the week before the title game was just pitiful. Respect is earned, and we sure haven't earned much lately in football.

[jimsumner]

"other than Duke and UNC . . . No one else in the conference has ever done anything in the big dance, save the occasional sweet 16 apperance"

NC State might beg to differ.

[sagegrouse]

"other than Duke and UNC . . . No one else in the conference has ever done anything in the big dance, save the occasional sweet 16 apperance"


From Jim Sumner:

NC State might beg to differ.

And Merlin.

Plus, two of the four times I went to the FF, Georgia Tech had a team there.

sagegrouse

[Highlander]

"other than Duke and UNC . . . No one else in the conference has ever done anything in the big dance, save the occasional sweet 16 apperance"

NC State might beg to differ.

I edited my post to clarify that I am talking about the last 25 years, but you both seemed to have missed the previous sentence in the quote. I'll repeat it below:

"Other than Duke and UNC, the ACC has had a grand total of 4 Final Four appearances in the last 25 years (2 GT, 2 MD).

[sagegrouse]

I edited my post to clarify that I am talking about the last 25 years, but you both seemed to have missed the previous sentence in the quote. I'll repeat it below:

"Other than Duke and UNC, the ACC has had a grand total of 4 Final Four appearances in the last 25 years (2 GT, 2 MD).

True enough. I didn't read your post -- I was just piling on.:):)

Of course, if you had said 30 years, you would have had to include the NC State championship and two UVa FF's.;) And that would be four schools.

Of course, how, how did Wake avoid the Final Four in the Childress/Duncan era or with Chris Paul?

sagegrouse

[Duke79UNLV77]

I don't think it's gotten to the point where conference games are no longer challenging for us yet. I say bring on the ACC football mediocrity. It's our best chance of being consistently respectable, with the occasional bowl game, and Cut is doing a great job of taking us there.

Don't you think Vandy would rather compete against ACC level football competition.

Of course, getting multiple teams to the BCS games and winning a BCS title would be great for revenue, but my main focus is on wins for Duke.

[loran16]

Our wonderful ACC commish, a UNC grad, sold out the ACC for the love of money and damaged our entire basketball tradition, rivalry and match-ups . . . where we used to play each team twice which was "fair and balanced" . . . now for instance we may play teams only once on their court or once on ours which STINKS!

All under the pretense of making ACC a stronger football conference (a.k.a. make a lot of bucks for the ACC) and let's be fair, the experiment has turned out horrible! Instead of lifting up football in the ACC, it damaged both football and basketball and the commish isn't being held accountable.

You could compile a team comprised of SEC "water boys" and beat any team in the ACC in football . . . it's a joke! And it was all done for money . . . when money rules and brains don't this is what you get. Live and learn!

Can we at least stop all the ACC football spin and just be honest? In football, the ACC is a second tier conference.

Umm, to be fair, BC and Virginia Tech may not have been national title contenders, but both have been fairly good in football since coming into the conference.

Miami had a slight dip but should be re-emerging under Randy Shannon.

So really, the only part of the ACC whose "downfall" is clear has been Florida State, and who could have predicted that?

Yeah, we're not the SEC. No we had no title contenders. But Bad conference? Ehhh not really. I'd give us decent shots against most teams in any conference but the SEC.

In other words, if you consider College Football to be the following:

Tier 1:
SEC

Tier 2:
Big 12
Big 10 (11)
Pac 10
Big East
ACC
MWC

then you're right. If you think there's another conference that's in the same league as the SEC, you're joking. The SEC is simply dominant right now. That's how it is. That doesn't mean the ACC is a second-tier conference.

----------------------------------------------------------
MORE IMPORTANTLY, do we care about that for Duke Football? Duke Football is on the rise for the first time in years. YOU SHOULD BE THRILLED WITH THAT. You just are exhibiting a BBall-centric view and its rather annoying...we have other sports you know.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Miami had a slight dip but should be re-emerging under Randy Shannon.

I'd say from 5 national titles to missing a bowl game last year is a slight dip! Sort, of like Florida basketball fell off a bit from back-to-back national titles. I do agree, though, that Miami football is back on the rise and that, more importantly, Duke football has risen to respectability.

[A-Tex Devil]

The biggest problem the ACC has with football right now is what just happened on Saturday.

They have yet to have a meaningful conference championship game. They have yet to have a sellout (:eek:). The TV ratings are awful.

They righted the ship somewhat in attendance this year (although it was less than 50K still), by switching it to an evening game and having two of the more rabid fan bases involved. But the TV ratings were historically bad -- mostly because they were up against the Big XII which had MNC implications.

As much as I hate to say it (as the other schools' success makes it tougher fo Duke), the ACC needs a FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech and Va Tech to all be good as well as one of UNC or NC State. I'll fly to Charlotte or J'Ville from Austin the day Duke makes a championship game, but this league wasn't designed for BC or Wake or Duke to be in the catbird's seat every year. And the fact one of those teams has been in the last 3 championship games has killed national interest in the ACC-CG.

[natedog4ever]

Oh come on, ACC football is awesome. Just ask the Gator Bowl.

[bird]

I checked the leader board in the Director's Cup standings (top 50), and the only expansion school to appear is BC at 40. Clemson, Ga. Tech, Miami, and Virginia Tech are missing. On the other hand, VA, NC, Fl. State, MD, Duke, Wake, and NC State are all in the top 50. So two out of the three expansion teams are in the top 50, while two out of the eight pre-expansion teams are out. But that is just for fall. For a full year, in the 2008-09 final standings, ACC teams appeared, top to bottom, NC, VA, Fl. State, Duke, MD, Wake, Miami, Va. Tech. Two out of three expansion teams made the list, but at the bottom. So 66 percent are in the top 50. However, Clemson and Ga. Tech are again missing from the top 50, as is NC State. So three out of the nine preexpansion teams are missing. Or 66 percent.

In sum, the overall performance of the expansion teams is not out of line with the rest of the ACC, although the overall performance is at the lower end of the list. They fit in, but did not raise the bar.

I will say that the demise of the Holy Round Robin is something I bitterly regret to this day. For me, fitting in is not good enough reward for that loss.

[Highlander]

True enough. I didn't read your post -- I was just piling on.:):)

Of course, if you had said 30 years, you would have had to include the NC State championship and two UVa FF's.;) And that would be four schools.

Of course, how, how did Wake avoid the Final Four in the Childress/Duncan era or with Chris Paul?

sagegrouse

I'll admit I got lucky in that I didn't know UVA had ever made a Final Four, and got lucky with my 25 year estimate. Prior to 25 years ago, I was in early elementary school so I wasn't following things all that closely. Learned something new...

I _knew_ Wake would choke with Paul, and picked them to lose to WVA in my bracket this year b/c that team played no discernable defense whatsoever. As to the Duncan years, IIRC someone got sick/hurt towards the end of the year and hurt them pretty bad.

[jimsumner]

"other than Duke and UNC . . . No one else in the conference has ever done anything in the big dance, save the occasional sweet 16 apperance"

NC State might beg to differ.

I edited my post to clarify that I am talking about the last 25 years, but you both seemed to have missed the previous sentence in the quote. I'll repeat it below:

"Other than Duke and UNC, the ACC has had a grand total of 4 Final Four appearances in the last 25 years (2 GT, 2 MD). "

And you seemed to have missed the sentence with the word "ever" in it. Which is curious, since it was your sentence. :)

[RoyalBlue08]

While if the original poster was trying to make the point that expansion is the reason the ACC is down in football, that is a fairly silly argument, but that said, I would definitely put myself in the camp of those against the expansion....both when it happened and now. One of the great things about ACC basketball was the perfect 16 game, home and home schedule. This was sacrificed for the sake of football and money. I would say this was a success, because the ACC brings in more money for football now with the larger TV contracts, championship game etc. I just don't care about any of that. To me, the ACC will always first and foremost be about basketball, and it was shame the conference leadership didn't feel the same way.

[RPS]

Our wonderful ACC commish, a UNC grad, sold out the ACC for the love of money and damaged our entire basketball tradition, rivalry and match-ups . . . where we used to play each team twice which was "fair and balanced" . . . now for instance we may play teams only once on their court or once on ours which STINKS!It's not where this thread has gone, but there's no good reason ACC teams can't play a home-and-home basketball schedule with everyone in the conference. Of course, teams would have to give up some early season cupcakes to do it....

[jimsumner]

"but there's no good reason ACC teams can't play a home-and-home basketball schedule with everyone in the conference."

Really? You want to play a 22-game conference schedule, followed by the ACC Tournament?

I'll become the first person on Mars before this happens.

[DevilHorns]

All football conferences are a joke, just for different reasons. The SEC is head and shoulders above the rest but they have sold their souls to get there.

How have they sold their souls? Just curious...

[kexman]

1) If you ask a non-ACC fan they would probably say the ACC is a basketball conference

2) If you ask Duke/unc/wake it is DEFINATELY a basketball conference

3) What would Clemson/GT/FSU say? I think they are more interested in football and probably were sick of it being a "basketball" conference. It might not have been all about the money, but that other schools in the conference do not care nearly as much about basketball as we do.

Being a basketball fan...I hate expansion. I also would love a 22 game conference schedule and dump a few of the cupcakes we play. It would be brutal and we probably would not get games in NYC or such...but I really liked true round robin

[RPS]

Really? You want to play a 22-game conference schedule, followed by the ACC Tournament?

I'll become the first person on Mars before this happens.Yup. You'd really rather see the likes of UNC-G, Radford, St. John's. Gardner-Webb, Long Beach State and Penn ahead of a full hoops round robin?

[whereinthehellami]

How have they sold their souls? Just curious...

Ethics. As in they have none. They have let the ends justify the means. I don't have the time or desire to get into how far the SEC has sunk. But for a glimpse google Bryce Brown, just remember to hold your nose before reading.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Yup. You'd really rather see the likes of UNC-G, Radford, St. John's. Gardner-Webb, Long Beach State and Penn ahead of a full hoops round robin?

Games like that are needed. They build confidence, allow the coaching staff to figure out chinks in their team's chain, and are a great lead up to the ACC games. A 22-game schedule would be insane, especially if a team doesn't have a deep bench (like Duke's backcourt this year).

[brevity]

Games like that are needed. They build confidence, allow the coaching staff to figure out chinks in their team's chain, and are a great lead up to the ACC games. A 22-game schedule would be insane, especially if a team doesn't have a deep bench (like Duke's backcourt this year).

Not only that, but what's the purpose of having a season where you only get to know 11 opponents really well, only to play in a multi-conference tournament that's set up to make rematches with any of those teams as unlikely as possible?

[RPS]

Games like that are needed. They build confidence, allow the coaching staff to figure out chinks in their team's chain, and are a great lead up to the ACC games. A 22-game schedule would be insane, especially if a team doesn't have a deep bench (like Duke's backcourt this year).If more cupcakes are needed, don't play in big tournaments and take out the higher quality non-conference games (e.g., Georgetown this year). The Big 10/ACC Challenge (which hasn't been very challenging before this year) could be eliminated. The claim that playing a full basketball round robin would make the schedule too demanding is spurious. The added ACC games would include both good and not-so-good teams, so the net result could readily be a wash (or even a net downgrade) if scheduled carefully. Clemson and the Terps would like to keep playing a slew of patsies though....

[RPS]

Not only that, but what's the purpose of having a season where you only get to know 11 opponents really well, only to play in a multi-conference tournament that's set up to make rematches with any of those teams as unlikely as possible?Without taking the time to look it up, I'd venture to say that given how infrequently Duke has played a team in the NCAA Tournament that it played during the regular season, a round robin wouldn't change that likelihood significantly.

[flyingdutchdevil]

If more cupcakes are needed, don't play in big tournaments and take out the higher quality non-conference games (e.g., Georgetown this year). The Big 10/ACC Challenge (which hasn't been very challenging before this year) could be eliminated. The claim that playing a full basketball round robin would make the schedule too demanding is spurious. The added ACC games would include both good and not-so-good teams, so the net result could readily be a wash (or even a net downgrade) if scheduled carefully. Clemson and the Terps would like to keep playing a slew of patsies though....

Wow - did you misread my post. I never said that we should have more "cupcake" games, but a balance needs to be achieved, which I think the Duke staff does a very good job of doing.

Also, you need a variety of teams, ie teams that trap, zone defenses, big teams, small teams, quick teams, strong teams - all that diversity is not available in the ACC.

[RPS]

Wow - did you misread my post. I never said that we should have more "cupcake" games, but a balance needs to be achieved, which I think the Duke staff does a very good job of doing.

Also, you need a variety of teams, ie teams that trap, zone defenses, big teams, small teams, quick teams, strong teams - all that diversity is not available in the ACC.I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Duke will see plenty of trapping, plenty of zone, big teams, small teams, quick teams and strong teams just within the ACC schedule. And in which of those categories do you place UNC-G, Radford, St. John's, Gardner-Webb, Long Beach State and Penn?

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Duke will see plenty of trapping, plenty of zone, big teams, small teams, quick teams and strong teams just within the ACC schedule. And in which of those categories do you place UNC-G, Radford, St. John's, Gardner-Webb, Long Beach State and Penn?

I love how you take things so literally - I was giving an example of types of teams, rather than those specific teams. That sad, in this year's ACC, you won't see as much quick play or small play as the rest of the country. The ACC is massive this year and, yes - there are a few teams that are on the small side (Maryland). Most teams in the country aren't the size of ACC teams, play small ball, will definitely play more zone against us than other ACC teams - we need to play as many different teams as possible.

Would you actually like to play KU, UK, Texas, Mich State, Purdue, and Villanova in place the six teams you listed (now don't take this literally ;) I mean replacing them with potential Elite 8 contenders)? That seems completely excessive and detrimental to our team - the potential for fatigue, injury, and lack of confidence is just so high.

[brevity]

Without taking the time to look it up, I'd venture to say that given how infrequently Duke has played a team in the NCAA Tournament that it played during the regular season, a round robin wouldn't change that likelihood significantly.

Not my point. To the extent that the regular season should prepare you for the NCAA Tournament, decreasing the variety of teams you play would only be an advantage if it helped you master playing those particular teams. Which is a pointless goal, because we all know that the NCAA Tournament is designed to avoid in-conference matchups. So sacrificing non-conference games for the sake of round robin would appear to be a significant disadvantage, at least from the postseason perspective.

[RPS]

Most teams in the country aren't the size of ACC teams, play small ball, will definitely play more zone against us than other ACC teams - we need to play as many different teams as possible.Given that much of the schedule is made a significant ways in advance, I don't think there is as much flexibility as many think. Moreover, I don't see many "variety" games in this year's schedule (beyond Georgetown and UConn -- and UConn wasn't guaranteed). I'm all for playing different kinds of teams. But I don't see that that couldn't and wouldn't be accomplished as well as it is now with a full round robin.


Would you actually like to play KU, UK, Texas, Mich State, Purdue, and Villanova in place the six teams you listed (now don't take this literally ;) I mean replacing them with potential Elite 8 contenders)? That seems completely excessive and detrimental to our team - the potential for fatigue, injury, and lack of confidence is just so high.I get your point, but don't think cupcakes help either. Playing a full round robin would not be like adding Elite 8 competition across the board. Besides, I miss home-and-home match-ups with State, Wake, UVa and Clemson especially (showing my age, I know).

My son plays football in the PAC-10 and I love that they play a full conference schedule. That means playing nine conference games and it's tough, because this year there was only one sure conference win. It hurt in terms of rankings too because PAC-10 teams don't have the opportunity to play all the cupcakes the SEC does. But for fan interest and excitement, it's huge. And a conference championship really means something.

[RPS]

Not my point. To the extent that the regular season should prepare you for the NCAA Tournament, decreasing the variety of teams you play would only be an advantage if it helped you master playing those particular teams. Which is a pointless goal, because we all know that the NCAA Tournament is designed to avoid in-conference matchups. So sacrificing non-conference games for the sake of round robin would appear to be a significant disadvantage, at least from the postseason perspective.Then your point can only apply if we assume that a full conference round robin would actually (rather than potentially) decrease the overall variety of opponents. Irrespective of which games in this year's schedule we assume would have been dropped to play a full round robin, I don't see variety being decreased significantly (beyond the trivial -- obviously the number of different teams is higher), particularly because this season's non-conference schedule is so weak. Gardner-Webb and UNC-G are different than Wake and State, but I don't see them as making Duke better on account of variety.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Given that much of the schedule is made a significant ways in advance, I don't think there is as much flexibility as many think. Moreover, I don't see many "variety" games in this year's schedule (beyond Georgetown and UConn -- and UConn wasn't guaranteed). I'm all for playing different kinds of teams. But I don't see that that couldn't and wouldn't be accomplished as well as it is now with a full round robin.

I get your point, but don't think cupcakes help either. Playing a full round robin would not be like adding Elite 8 competition across the board. Besides, I miss home-and-home match-ups with State, Wake, UVa and Clemson especially (showing my age, I know).

My son plays football in the PAC-10 and I love that they play a full conference schedule. That means playing nine conference games and it's tough, because this year there was only one sure conference win. It hurt in terms of rankings too because PAC-10 teams don't have the opportunity to play all the cupcakes the SEC does. But for fan interest and excitement, it's huge. And a conference championship really means something.

I too miss the home-and-home match-ups. It was so much more organised that it is today. However, the ACC expansion is what it is, and replacing ACC games with cupcakes has it's advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I'm all for expanding the college season by a few weeks, but I think that "April Madness" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

[allenmurray]

Then your point can only apply if we assume that a full conference round robin would actually (rather than potentially) decrease the overall variety of opponents. Irrespective of which games in this year's schedule we assume would have been dropped to play a full round robin, I don't see variety being decreased significantly (beyond the trivial -- obviously the number of different teams is higher), particularly because this season's non-conference schedule is so weak. Gardner-Webb and UNC-G are different than Wake and State, but I don't see them as making Duke better on account of variety.

The double round-robin is gone. Sad, but true.

This year Duke played 6 non-conference games in November (3 of which were NIT), 6 in December (1 of which was ACC/Big Ten), 2 in January, and 1 in February. Assuming we didn't drop the NIT or the ACC/Big 10 that leaves a total of 11 games. To go to a true double round-robin we'd have to drop 6 of those 11 games. Charlotte is turning out to be a pretty good team, as is St. John's. Gonzaga is always a good match-up as is Georgetown and Iowa State.

I think we all miss the double round-robin, but we knew we gave it up in order to become a big football conference (How is that working out for you John Swofford? Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech and BC were supposed to put us on the football map, huh? One win and nine losses in the last decade in BCS bowl games - it just wasn't worth it).

Which of the above basketball games (Gtown, Gonzaga, St. John's, Iowa State) would you give up in order to play a second game against FSU, VA Tech, VA, or Miami? (I hate that we don't play the wolfies and Wake twice in order to have a true state champ - simply the proximity makes it a great in-state match-up).

[whereinthehellami]

Here is an eye opening article on FSU (http://www.tomahawknation.com/2009/12/7/1189140/how-will-jimbo-fisher-change) and where their football program is at. Its sad to see FSU going the SEC route.

[AnimalFriendly]

I too miss the home-and-home match-ups. It was so much more organised that it is today. However, the ACC expansion is what it is, and replacing ACC games with cupcakes has it's advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I'm all for expanding the college season by a few weeks, but I think that "April Madness" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

I don't think we'll ever see a 22-game regular season ACC schedule - I doubt if the coaches would ever go for that. But a nice compromise that I really wish they'd consider would be to add two more games and have 18 conference match-ups per team instead of 16. That would up the number of teams you'd play home-and-away each season to 7, instead of the current less-than-half five, and only leave 4 that you'd play once.

[RPS]

Which of the above basketball games (Gtown, Gonzaga, St. John's, Iowa State) would you give up in order to play a second game against FSU, VA Tech, VA, or Miami?I'm not sure that's the right question. I'm not advocating going back to a "Big Four" tournament around Thanksgiving (even I think that was overkill, fun though it was), I remember when we used to play a league game against UVa in December. Doing so really racheted up the interest ahead of the semester break. I'd happily play a few league games before January and give up some of the games we have scheduled there now.

[allenmurray]

I'm not sure that's the right question. I'm not advocating going back to a "Big Four" tournament around Thanksgiving (even I think that was overkill, fun though it was), I remember when we used to play a league game against UVa in December. Doing so really racheted up the interest ahead of the semester break. I'd happily play a few league games before January and give up some of the games we have scheduled there now.

I miss the double round-robin. But I also like seeing us play a couple teams from NC (Charlotte and UNC-G). Some of our other OOC games are really good matchups with some history behind them (Georgetown, St. Johns, Gonzaga, etc.). I like that we participate in tournaments (NIT) and in the ACC/Big 10 challenge (or similar ventures). The problem is that situation leaves very little room to cut in order to allow for more in-conference gaems. We sacrificed it for football. As much as I love football it just wasn't worth in, IMHO. but now that we have done that I htink returning tomore in-conference games is just not feasible.

[SupaDave]

Our wonderful ACC commish, a UNC grad, sold out the ACC for the love of money and damaged our entire basketball tradition, rivalry and match-ups . . . where we used to play each team twice which was "fair and balanced" . . . now for instance we may play teams only once on their court or once on ours which STINKS!

All under the pretense of making ACC a stronger football conference (a.k.a. make a lot of bucks for the ACC) and let's be fair, the experiment has turned out horrible! Instead of lifting up football in the ACC, it damaged both football and basketball and the commish isn't being held accountable.


I think the commish would disagree.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12620437/georgia-techclemson-title-game-showcases-upandcoming-acc

[-bdbd]

The biggest problem the ACC has with football right now is what just happened on Saturday.

They have yet to have a meaningful conference championship game. They have yet to have a sellout (:eek:). The TV ratings are awful.

They righted the ship somewhat in attendance this year (although it was less than 50K still), by switching it to an evening game and having two of the more rabid fan bases involved. But the TV ratings were historically bad -- mostly because they were up against the Big XII which had MNC implications.

As much as I hate to say it (as the other schools' success makes it tougher fo Duke), the ACC needs a FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech and Va Tech to all be good as well as one of UNC or NC State. I'll fly to Charlotte or J'Ville from Austin the day Duke makes a championship game, but this league wasn't designed for BC or Wake or Duke to be in the catbird's seat every year. And the fact one of those teams has been in the last 3 championship games has killed national interest in the ACC-CG.

Look no further than 2010 for the solution to the ACC's FB Championship attendance woes. Though admittedly the 3 previous years saw constant declines, bottoming out last year in the 20K's, the game being 500+ miles from the heart of ACC country certainly hasn't helped. It was good to see improvement, finally, this year. Contrast that with FL and Bama playing this year in the ususal SEC Chamionship CENTRAL locale in Atlanta - it makes for a BIG attendance difference (to say nothing of the fanbase sizes of those two schools) ...and maybe the team quality too...

But playing the next couple years in Charlotte should make for a HUGE difference, as all but maybe 2 ACC teams are within easy drive distance of there... now just watch Miami and BC be the two teams!! Ha! But seriously, don't we agree that, say, VT playing UNC or Clemson or GT in Charlotte will likely sell out in Dec. 2010??

In an unrelated request: Does anyone have the Duke FB 2010 schedule, or a link? I couldn't find it at GoDuke.com

Thanks.

:cool:

[SupaDave]

Hmmmm... Let's take a closer look. Here's some things to consider...

BCS payout is bananas and it benefits the entire conference. For comparison's sake - Duke playing Georgia Tech a second time at the end of the year last year would probably have not benefitted the team.
http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/5899050/BCS-Bowl-Facts?print=true
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070103195957AAhm71z


Q: How would the ACC's expansion affect the Bowl Championship Series?

A: It would create another 12-team "superconference" and increase competition for at-large BCS bids. The ACC and Big East are the only BCS equity conferences with fewer than 10 football teams, and they are the only leagues not to earn an at-large BCS bid since its 1998 inception.

The ACC's expansion timetable coincides with the new BCS contract, which is expected to include a playoff for the national championship beginning with the 2006 regular season.

Rick Catlett, the Gator Bowl's executive director, said 12-team conferences "are going to be controlling college football postseason play."

Enter Georgia Tech - stage right...

Expansion also helped stop THIS:

FSU also has lost its Atlantic Coast Conference dominance. After joining the ACC in 1992, the Seminoles went a sterling 70-2 in conference play en route to winning nine straight ACC titles (seven outright, two shared).

As far as basketball is concerned it appears the ACC hasn't been hurt much at all (add in the 2009 title and the ACC is nearly airtight)...
http://www.makingthedance.com/2007/09/tournament-success-by-conference.html


Q: How would the 12-team ACC be aligned for basketball?
A: The conference also could be split into two six-team divisions for basketball, but Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski and others have opposed changing the ACC's traditional home-and-home rivalries for the sake of expansion and realignment.

Additionally, the conference tourney gives teams rematch possibilities and the seeding increases the value of a game against a team that you may only meet once. We lost to BC last year in the regular season but met them again in the tourney and won.

So in effect, it appears the ACC has done exactly what it set out to do. The loss of the round robin games may sting a little but I'm with the commish on the fact that it seems like a small price to pay. Playing an ACC bottom feeder twice may not help a school but getting to schedule teams with different styles of play most certainly does - and all the schools are richer for it (UVA hasn't won big in quite a while but that didn't stop them from building a state of the art basketball facility recently)...

But back to football - I remember there was a time where other schools barely had to game plan for ACC schools and would have the second string in the game in the 3rd quarter. Those days are long gone and with the reemergence of Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Wake the ACC is hands down a much more competitive conference. Virginia Tech and Boston College are stable. Duke and UNC are on the rise. NC State, UVA, and Maryland have the ability to field good teams.

This year - the ACC will field 7 bowl eligible teams with one in a BCS bowl. Interestingly enough, in 2002-2003 the ACC fielded TEN teams in college bowls. The irony? Those extra three teams were the eventual teams added to the conference - VA Tech, BC, and Miami. That year Miami and Florida State were both in what would be today's BCS bowls - both lost which was especially damaging considering the fact that FSU was our flagship at the time.

And this year? Yep - four out of the seven teams to see a bowl are EXPANSION teams...

The differing teams - Wake, Virginia, Maryland, and NC State - haven't exactly been holding up their end on the basketball court lately either (with Wake being an obvious exception)...

[A-Tex Devil]

Look no further than 2010 for the solution to the ACC's FB Championship attendance woes. Though admittedly the 3 previous years saw constant declines, bottoming out last year in the 20K's, the game being 500+ miles from the heart of ACC country certainly hasn't helped. It was good to see improvement, finally, this year. Contrast that with FL and Bama playing this year in the ususal SEC Chamionship CENTRAL locale in Atlanta - it makes for a BIG attendance difference (to say nothing of the fanbase sizes of those two schools) ...and maybe the team quality too...

But playing the next couple years in Charlotte should make for a HUGE difference, as all but maybe 2 ACC teams are within easy drive distance of there... now just watch Miami and BC be the two teams!! Ha! But seriously, don't we agree that, say, VT playing UNC or Clemson or GT in Charlotte will likely sell out in Dec. 2010??

In an unrelated request: Does anyone have the Duke FB 2010 schedule, or a link? I couldn't find it at GoDuke.com

Thanks.

:cool:

I will be interested to see if having the game in Charlotte makes a difference. I think it will, but a Miami-BC matchup would be a disaster next year, that's for sure. (I'd favor Miami just a bit over VaTech to come out of our division next year. Who knows about the other one).

When it all comes down to it, if the ACC has a team in the title hunt playing another team with BCS aspirations in the ACC-CG, people will come, and people will watch on TV across the country. That just hasn't happened yet. Is it bad luck considering how many championships Miami, Florida St. and even Va Tech (once) played for? Or a sign that the ACC is a second rate conference. I'm not sure yet.

Next year's non-con:
9-18 Alabama
9-25 Army
10-30 @ Navy
TBA Elon

[Kane]

http://beyondthearc.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/10/2149238.aspx

[CDu]

Hmmmm... Let's take a closer look. Here's some things to consider...

BCS payout is bananas and it benefits the entire conference. For comparison's sake - Duke playing Georgia Tech a second time at the end of the year last year would probably have not benefitted the team.
http://www.bcsfootball.org/cfb/story/5899050/BCS-Bowl-Facts?print=true
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070103195957AAhm71z

Enter Georgia Tech - stage right...

I believe that Georgia Tech is irrelevant to the argument this year in football. They'd have gotten a BCS bid for the conference winner with or without a conference championship (just like the Pac-10 and Big-10). Where the extra money would come in would be if we had gotten an at-large BCS team.

In theory, it pays off to have 12 teams, because you have a chance at a second BCS birth. That, along with the money from a championship game, would be the big payoffs of expansion. But in practice the conference hasn't done very well so far in actually landing an at-large BCS bowl bid. We've typically just been getting the one bid.

[A-Tex Devil]

We've always just been getting the one bid.

Fixed

[SupaDave]

I believe that Georgia Tech is irrelevant to the argument this year in football. They'd have gotten a BCS bid for the conference winner with or without a conference championship (just like the Pac-10 and Big-10). Where the extra money would come in would be if we had gotten an at-large BCS team.

In theory, it pays off to have 12 teams, because you have a chance at a second BCS birth. That, along with the money from a championship game, would be the big payoffs of expansion. But in practice the conference hasn't done very well so far in actually landing an at-large BCS bowl bid. We've typically just been getting the one bid.

Excellent point. Two BCS bowls would be a windfall. I don't think it's far out of the realm of possibility next year at all.