(12-31-2013 05:56 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 04:17 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 02:57 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 07:09 PM)Dasville Wrote:  It's cyclical:

Truth is, it's not 'cyclical', as that term implies alternating times when the ACC and SEC have been better than the other. But there has been no time or era of any real duration where the ACC was better (in football) than the SEC. Even the 1999-2003 period cited by the author was characterized by the ACC/SEC having a .500 record against each other, it wasn't characterized by ACC 'dominance'. Heck during that time the SEC won five BCS bowls and the ACC just one.

That's because historically (1950s - 1990s), ACC football was Clemson contending for a national title once a generation or so, and Maryland having an occasional good team. When the 1990s hit and it became apparent the real money was in football, the ACC did not try to develop its football league, rather it tried to buy football power via the addition of FSU, and later Miami, VT and BC. FSU carried the banner nicely during the 90s (albeit as a general without an army) but the other added schools have slumped since joining the league. Probably because the ACC was (and remains) a basketball conference at heart. The fans of its core schools (Clemson excepted) just care more about how the hoops team does than the football team, and that permeates the institutions, because generally speaking, fans get what they clamor for. The SEC itself is a good example of that, if one considers the quality of Alabama vs Kentucky in football and basketball.

Can the ACC's football fortunes change in the future? Sure, but we'll all believe it when we see it.

Good point about comparing the ACC vs SEC. That will not be cyclical.

But teams within the league in terms of football is cyclical. Just as teams within the SEC have been cyclical.

The actual teams that now comprise the ACC have enough history in them to match the Pac-12 and Big 12 but they can't match those in the SEC or even the BiG - both of which have 4 or more Kings in them.

I do believe that the ACC has enough football strength now that if the programs perform the way they are capable of performing (and have from an historical perspective) they could battle the BiG for second best and consistently be considered the third best overall.

Cheers,
Neil

That King and Baron stuff is BS. You can't use that for historical comparisons. Miami and FSU have little tradition before the 80s. At one point, Minny was a national power. Pitt and Cuse both have more tradition than Clemson or VT. Things changed and things will continue to change.

Of course you can. The proper use of Kings goes to the historical context of looking at the body of work over the past 50 years. In that context Minny was only a Knight.

Barons is less stringent in the historical concept to allow for things changing over time. But even when looking at it from a less than 50 year perspective, whether it be 30, 25, or 20 the Kings are still Kings.

Sure we have Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Oregon, and VT now intermingled with the Kings, but until they get on the same level as the Kings over a 50 year period, they won't make the list. Auburn is the Baron that has the best shot at it, imho

Cheers,
Neil

here is an article from a Syracuse man on Auburn

its a long cycle apparently

bud poloquin on hia view of Auburn

(01-01-2014 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It starts with recruiting. The SEC's average ranking is #17. The ACC's is #35. The ACC only has 3 teams ranked higher than the SEC average.

To combat the talent differential you need superior coaching. Right now the only one of the 11 ranked below the SEC average I would even consider saying has that is Duke.

The more academic schools of the ACC tend to skew this average. The top 8-10 teams of the ACC recruit on par with the top 10-12 teams of the SEC. It's not recruiting. It's completely coaching.

Duke went toe to toe with Texas A&M. Frankly, if it wasn't for some ill-timed interceptions, they could have won that game. GT did not look outclassed by Ole Miss from a talent perspective, but Paul Johnson was outcoached. There is little to no difference between SC and Clemson talent wise. However, Spurrier is a much better coach than Dabo. I wish Cutcliffe was at a better school than Duke (I'd shutter to think what he could do at Clemson) because he is a really good coach. Jimbo is proving to be a better coach than he was given credit initially. Charlie Strong is a good coach. The jury is still out on Larry Fedora, Dave Doeren, Steve Addazio, Scott Shafer, Al Golden, even Dabo.

I'm done with Mike London, Paul Johnson, Frank Beamer (he's done his time....he needs to retire)

(01-01-2014 06:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 05:56 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 04:17 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 02:57 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Truth is, it's not 'cyclical', as that term implies alternating times when the ACC and SEC have been better than the other. But there has been no time or era of any real duration where the ACC was better (in football) than the SEC. Even the 1999-2003 period cited by the author was characterized by the ACC/SEC having a .500 record against each other, it wasn't characterized by ACC 'dominance'. Heck during that time the SEC won five BCS bowls and the ACC just one.

That's because historically (1950s - 1990s), ACC football was Clemson contending for a national title once a generation or so, and Maryland having an occasional good team. When the 1990s hit and it became apparent the real money was in football, the ACC did not try to develop its football league, rather it tried to buy football power via the addition of FSU, and later Miami, VT and BC. FSU carried the banner nicely during the 90s (albeit as a general without an army) but the other added schools have slumped since joining the league. Probably because the ACC was (and remains) a basketball conference at heart. The fans of its core schools (Clemson excepted) just care more about how the hoops team does than the football team, and that permeates the institutions, because generally speaking, fans get what they clamor for. The SEC itself is a good example of that, if one considers the quality of Alabama vs Kentucky in football and basketball.

Can the ACC's football fortunes change in the future? Sure, but we'll all believe it when we see it.

Good point about comparing the ACC vs SEC. That will not be cyclical.

But teams within the league in terms of football is cyclical. Just as teams within the SEC have been cyclical.

The actual teams that now comprise the ACC have enough history in them to match the Pac-12 and Big 12 but they can't match those in the SEC or even the BiG - both of which have 4 or more Kings in them.

I do believe that the ACC has enough football strength now that if the programs perform the way they are capable of performing (and have from an historical perspective) they could battle the BiG for second best and consistently be considered the third best overall.

Cheers,
Neil

That King and Baron stuff is BS. You can't use that for historical comparisons. Miami and FSU have little tradition before the 80s. At one point, Minny was a national power. Pitt and Cuse both have more tradition than Clemson or VT. Things changed and things will continue to change.

Of course you can. The proper use of Kings goes to the historical context of looking at the body of work over the past 50 years. In that context Minny was only a Knight.

Barons is less stringent in the historical concept to allow for things changing over time. But even when looking at it from a less than 50 year perspective, whether it be 30, 25, or 20 the Kings are still Kings.

Sure we have Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Oregon, and VT now intermingled with the Kings, but until they get on the same level as the Kings over a 50 year period, they won't make the list. Auburn is the Baron that has the best shot at it, imho

Cheers,
Neil

here is an article from a Syracuse man on Auburn

its a long cycle apparently

bud poloquin on hia view of Auburn

Thanks, interesting read. Not sure why you posted it though. Can you share your thought process as to the connection to this thread?

Cheers,
Neil

(01-01-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think Kings, Knights, and Barons is a fair analysis. Schools can move up and down the proverbial system over time. Schools like Oregon could certainly become a King in the future the same way PSU dropped from being a King.

Exactly. PSU and Miami are the two Kings that are in danger of dropping, but haven't just yet. PSU was a Top 10 team 3 times during the 00s and Miami won an NC and played for another in that decade as well.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-01-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think Kings, Knights, and Barons is a fair analysis. Schools can move up and down the proverbial system over time. Schools like Oregon could certainly become a King in the future the same way PSU dropped from being a King.

Penn State is still a top 15 all-time, blue-chip program.

(01-01-2014 07:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think Kings, Knights, and Barons is a fair analysis. Schools can move up and down the proverbial system over time. Schools like Oregon could certainly become a King in the future the same way PSU dropped from being a King.

Penn State is still a top 15 all-time, blue-chip program.

I don't give a sh*t bout their wins before I was even born. I don't view them the same way I view Florida, Auburn, Texas, and Oklahoma. They're nothing more than Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Oregon, and Standford... and there's nothing wrong with that.

(01-01-2014 06:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It starts with recruiting. The SEC's average ranking is #17. The ACC's is #35. The ACC only has 3 teams ranked higher than the SEC average.

To combat the talent differential you need superior coaching. Right now the only one of the 11 ranked below the SEC average I would even consider saying has that is Duke.

The top 8-10 teams of the ACC recruit on par with the top 10-12 teams of the SEC.

What are the 5 highest class rankings for the ACC and SEC each of the last 5 years? The 10 best rankings for each conference?

We all KNOW the SEC wins this comparison.

(01-01-2014 08:02 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 06:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It starts with recruiting. The SEC's average ranking is #17. The ACC's is #35. The ACC only has 3 teams ranked higher than the SEC average.

To combat the talent differential you need superior coaching. Right now the only one of the 11 ranked below the SEC average I would even consider saying has that is Duke.

The top 8-10 teams of the ACC recruit on par with the top 10-12 teams of the SEC.

What are the 5 highest class rankings for the ACC and SEC each of the last 5 years? The 10 best rankings for each conference?

We all KNOW the SEC wins this comparison.

I didn't say the SEC wouldn't win. I said the ACC's top teams are on par. ACC out recruits every other conference outside of the SEC and yet what has that translated to on the field. Coaching is the issue.

(01-01-2014 07:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think Kings, Knights, and Barons is a fair analysis. Schools can move up and down the proverbial system over time. Schools like Oregon could certainly become a King in the future the same way PSU dropped from being a King.

Penn State is still a top 15 all-time, blue-chip program.

If I'm not mistaken, Penn State hasn't been in the hunt for a national title since 1994. That's about the time it joined the Big Ten.

In '99, PSU started 8-0 before losing three straight. In 2005, they lost once. In 2008, they lost once before playing USC inthe Rose Bowl. Of course, all the wins were vacated.

(12-31-2013 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 07:09 PM)Dasville Wrote:  It's cyclical:

Truth is, it's not 'cyclical', as that term implies alternating times when the ACC and SEC have been better than the other. But there has been no time or era of any real duration where the ACC was better (in football) than the SEC.

While THIS part is true, there have been plenty of times where the SEC was not on top of the world of football. And one doesn't have to look back that far: it was less than ten years ago.

(01-02-2014 11:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 07:09 PM)Dasville Wrote:  It's cyclical:

Truth is, it's not 'cyclical', as that term implies alternating times when the ACC and SEC have been better than the other. But there has been no time or era of any real duration where the ACC was better (in football) than the SEC.

While THIS part is true, there have been plenty of times where the SEC was not on top of the world of football. And one doesn't have to look back that far: it was less than ten years ago.

INDEED... and the conference which was on top at that time was the ACC. So, perhaps it's an uneven cycle (with the SEC on top more so than the ACC, but still with ebb & flow).

(01-02-2014 01:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 11:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 07:09 PM)Dasville Wrote:  It's cyclical:

Truth is, it's not 'cyclical', as that term implies alternating times when the ACC and SEC have been better than the other. But there has been no time or era of any real duration where the ACC was better (in football) than the SEC.

While THIS part is true, there have been plenty of times where the SEC was not on top of the world of football. And one doesn't have to look back that far: it was less than ten years ago.

INDEED... and the conference which was on top at that time was the ACC. So, perhaps it's an uneven cycle (with the SEC on top more so than the ACC, but still with ebb & flow).

The ACC was on top? When?

(01-01-2014 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 08:02 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 06:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It starts with recruiting. The SEC's average ranking is #17. The ACC's is #35. The ACC only has 3 teams ranked higher than the SEC average.

To combat the talent differential you need superior coaching. Right now the only one of the 11 ranked below the SEC average I would even consider saying has that is Duke.

The top 8-10 teams of the ACC recruit on par with the top 10-12 teams of the SEC.

What are the 5 highest class rankings for the ACC and SEC each of the last 5 years? The 10 best rankings for each conference?

We all KNOW the SEC wins this comparison.

I didn't say the SEC wouldn't win. I said the ACC's top teams are on par. ACC out recruits every other conference outside of the SEC and yet what has that translated to on the field. Coaching is the issue.

So the ACC is on par yet the SEC still recruits better? That makes sense. Not.

(01-02-2014 01:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 11:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  there have been plenty of times where the SEC was not on top of the world of football. And one doesn't have to look back that far: it was less than ten years ago.

INDEED... and the conference which was on top at that time was the ACC. So, perhaps it's an uneven cycle (with the SEC on top more so than the ACC, but still with ebb & flow).

Well I don't know about that, but the SEC has not always been king despite natural recruiting advantages.

(01-02-2014 01:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 11:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 06:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 07:09 PM)Dasville Wrote:  It's cyclical:

Truth is, it's not 'cyclical', as that term implies alternating times when the ACC and SEC have been better than the other. But there has been no time or era of any real duration where the ACC was better (in football) than the SEC.

While THIS part is true, there have been plenty of times where the SEC was not on top of the world of football. And one doesn't have to look back that far: it was less than ten years ago.

INDEED... and the conference which was on top at that time was the ACC. So, perhaps it's an uneven cycle (with the SEC on top more so than the ACC, but still with ebb & flow).

I can't remember any time in which the ACC as a whole was better than the SEC. I can't even remember when it was close. And I go back a long way.

I think it's fair to say that Swofford has a better perspective on the relative strength of the SEC than most conference commissioners. He has seen it up close and personal. Over the past four years, the ACC has played against the SEC 37 times. The other four power conferences (soon to be three other) have only played the SEC a total of 46 games combined. Given that during this period the SEC has been the most dominant conference (at least ESPN thinks so) that has hurt the perception of the ACC nationally. We only win a third of those games, which have usually matched our best against their best, thanks to rivalry games.

(01-02-2014 01:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ACC was on top? When?

I think there have been several years when the ACC was the best football conference. Here are just a few examples:

1990
1T. Colorado (XII), Ga Tech (ACC)
3. Miami (IND)
4. Florida St (IND)
5. Washington (Pac)
6. Notre Dame (IND)
7. Michigan (B1G)
8. Tennessee (highest SEC)
9. Clemson (ACC)
10. Houston (C-USA)
...
23. Virginia (ACC)
Only the ACC had 2 top 10; REAL National Champ was ACC; 3 & 4 were both future ACC.

1991
1. Miami (IND)
4. FSU (ACC)
5. Alabama (SEC)
...
11. Syracuse (BE, future ACC)
18. Clemson (ACC)
24. NC State (ACC)

2000
1. Oklahoma (XII)
2. Miami (BE)
3. Washington (Pac)
4. Oregon St (Pac)
5. Florida St (ACC)
6. Va Tech (BE, future ACC)
...
10. Florida (highest SEC team)
...
16. Clemson (ACC)
17. Ga Tech (ACC)

At least in the ACC/SEC discussion, it's very clear that the ACC has been well ahead of the SEC at times... which is what this thread is about (not ACC vs. Pac-12, etc. - though I'd put 1990 ACC up against anyone, even without Miami and Florida St!)

(01-02-2014 01:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 08:02 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 06:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It starts with recruiting. The SEC's average ranking is #17. The ACC's is #35. The ACC only has 3 teams ranked higher than the SEC average.

To combat the talent differential you need superior coaching. Right now the only one of the 11 ranked below the SEC average I would even consider saying has that is Duke.

The top 8-10 teams of the ACC recruit on par with the top 10-12 teams of the SEC.

What are the 5 highest class rankings for the ACC and SEC each of the last 5 years? The 10 best rankings for each conference?

We all KNOW the SEC wins this comparison.

I didn't say the SEC wouldn't win. I said the ACC's top teams are on par. ACC out recruits every other conference outside of the SEC and yet what has that translated to on the field. Coaching is the issue.

So the ACC is on par yet the SEC still recruits better? That makes sense. Not.

That's because you don't know what on par really means.

We all know FSU, Miami, Clemson, Va Tech, UNC can recruit with the SEC. It's the bottom of the ACC that has the biggest issue.

(01-02-2014 03:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 01:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 08:02 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-01-2014 06:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The top 8-10 teams of the ACC recruit on par with the top 10-12 teams of the SEC.

What are the 5 highest class rankings for the ACC and SEC each of the last 5 years? The 10 best rankings for each conference?

We all KNOW the SEC wins this comparison.

I didn't say the SEC wouldn't win. I said the ACC's top teams are on par. ACC out recruits every other conference outside of the SEC and yet what has that translated to on the field. Coaching is the issue.

So the ACC is on par yet the SEC still recruits better? That makes sense. Not.

That's because you don't know what on par really means.

We all know FSU, Miami, Clemson, Va Tech, UNC can recruit with the SEC. It's the bottom of the ACC that has the biggest issue.

I can go along with you on the first three. But excluding the suspect Butch Davis years, UNC wouldn't compare with the top half of the SEC, and I'm afraid being in the ACC may have finally pulled Va Tech's recruiting in the wrong direction. Those two schools would be scratching to escape the bottom half of the SEC every year.

Never blame the conference for a own school's failings. If VT's recruiting is going in the wrong direction, that's completely on the staff there.