2010 College Football Thread

[suns]

Just don't like them.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Ahh seems like a reasonable response..

[MDF3530]

I hope that, after today's Iowa-Iowa State game, I will be lamenting the fact that in heaven there is no beer .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkeye_Victory_Polka

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

VT lost to James Madison looool.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Miami looking a bit sloppy on offense. I'm glad Lamar Miller got that TD though only because he went to my high school.

[mvp 78]

VT lost to James Madison looool.

 

Doesn't help Boise St.

[suns]

Jacory Harris....

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Jacory Harris for heisman L M F A O! 4 interceptions great job.

[See Red]

Doesn't help Boise St.

 

Boise's done for in regards to the National Championship picture.

 

Why does the ACC get an automatic bid, again? What a s***** conference.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Ohis State is killing UM in the running game.

[MDF3530]

In heaven there is no beer

That's why we drink it here

And when we're gone from here

Our friends will be drinking all our beer!

[mvp 78]

F Notre Dame!!! Was hard to root for Mich though.

[yankees228]

Very excited about tonight. Nice little test for Bama.

[msubulldogs21]

Why does the ACC get an automatic bid' date=' again? What a s***** conference.[/quote']

 

You beat me to it. The ACC has been irrelevant in the national scheme of things for a good decade or so.

 

It would be cool to play an ACC schedule (or another terrible conference) for just one year just to see how much easier it would be not having to play Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Florida, etc every week. Last year we had the #1 toughest schedule in the nation - this year we're #4. It's frustrating.

 

...And apparently I was on ESPN multiple times the other night during the State/Auburn game.

[msubulldogs21]

Very excited about tonight. Nice little test for Bama.

 

That game was no surprise. Alabama is a lot better than Penn State, and with them starting a freshman at QB I expected a beat down.

[ORS]

You beat me to it. The ACC has been irrelevant in the national scheme of things for a good decade or so.

This really isn't true. It's been less than a decade since FSU was a consistent top-10 team, and when the conference absorbed UM, VT, and BC from the Big-East, it moved toward the middle of pack of BCS conferences, IMO.

 

It would be cool to play an ACC schedule (or another terrible conference) for just one year just to see how much easier it would be not having to play Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Florida, etc every week. Last year we had the #1 toughest schedule in the nation - this year we're #4. It's frustrating.

 

...And apparently I was on ESPN multiple times the other night during the State/Auburn game.

Clearly, the SEC and Big XXII (actually only the south half of the Big-12, IMO) have been the power conferences the last decade. That said, when you compare, top to bottom, the ACC and other traditional football conferences, like the Big 10 and Pac 10, I think they are of similar quality.*

 

Sure, they aren't having a good year, but every one of the non-power BCS conferences experiences this from time to time.

 

*EDIT: This comparison is not meant to be for this year only, but over the last 5-10 years.

[schillingouttheks]

Prior to the SEC's Golden Age of BCS championships and berths, the ACC was in its own. Miami, FSU, VT were consistently top 10 teams, including the VT-FSU national title game. It has been a down time for the ACC, but to suggest that it is a "cupcake" is a little extreme. Try the Big East and its auto-bid into the (normally) Orange Bowl. North Carolina, Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson and Virginia Tech (minus the start of this year) are all teams to which anyone can lose. UNC was missing 8 of its starters and came 2 dropped passes in the end zone from beating LSU.

[ORS]

For the sake of accuracy, when Miami and VT were consistently top-10 teams, they were in the Big East, I believe.

[schillingouttheks]

For the sake of accuracy' date=' when Miami and VT were consistently top-10 teams, they were in the Big East, I believe.[/quote']

 

Ya, but I meant that the success doesn't just stop because they joined the ACC. When they were absorbed, the ACC became a conference that could churn out title contenders based on what they had done in the Big East. Those teams are no longer at that level, but like every single conference at one point or another, is going through a stage of slight mediocrity. The recruiting classes that schools like Clemson, Miami, FSU and VT gather each year are too good to cast the ACC as a joke conference. UNC and Georgia Tech (even though losing to KU yesterday) are also highly touted programs coming into this year. Even BC has an upset or two up its sleeves or a shot at an ACC Championship. If anything, I think a lot of people are out of touch with what the ACC brings to the table. Be a fan of an ACC team and watch the competition every single weekend... it's one of the most balanced conferences in BCS, including a bunch of teams who are no strangers to BCS bowls. The conference will be back, and the SEC will fall from its level of play at some point too. It's cyclical ... happens to everyone.

 

But yes, you're right, they were Big East teams at the time which have brought that experience to the ACC. Before the merger the ACC had very, very little. That FSU-VT title game was actually a Big East-ACC match-up, which would never happen now.

[ORS]

Fair points. I really also agree about the balance you spoke of. The very bottom of the ACC, Duke, is dreadful, bad enough to make the likes of Vandy, Baylor, Northwestern, and Washington State look like tremendous football programs (well, maybe not Wash St), but on a yearly basis, I'd pit their 6-11 against any conferences'.

[schillingouttheks]

I still think BC could have beaten USC in the Emerald Bowl last year too.

[Cocos Disciples]

I know it was against Morgan State, but Maryland won 62-3 last night. That was fun.

 

Now to get absolutely pillaged against West Virginia..

[Spudboy]

UMASS dominated Holy Cross, 31-7 to go 2-0.

[msubulldogs21]

Fair points. I really also agree about the balance you spoke of. The very bottom of the ACC' date=' Duke, is dreadful, bad enough to make the likes of Vandy, Baylor, Northwestern, and Washington State look like tremendous football programs (well, maybe not Wash St), but on a yearly basis, I'd pit their 6-11 against any conferences'.[/quote']

 

I think what separates the SEC from every single conference is its depth. The top half of the conference speaks for itself, but when you get down to the bottom half you also have some very formidable teams who would finish a lot higher if they played in other conferences. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Tennessee - these three teams will likely be in the bottom half of the SEC but are far from automatic wins like you have in pretty much any other conference (the Washington State, Baylor, Iowa State, Duke, Syracuse, Purdue, etc type teams). Ole Miss and Vanderbilt also have some talent and can give you a game as well. You just don't have any off weeks. It's a constant grind. Playing an ACC/Big XII/Big East type schedule you know what weeks you have circled on your calender, and you know what weeks you're playing the weak sisters of the conference.

 

I also wouldn't throw in Northwestern with the other teams you mentioned, ORS. They're developing a pretty steady football program up in Evanston.

[msubulldogs21]

Be a fan of an ACC team and watch the competition every single weekend... it's one of the most balanced conferences in BCS' date=' including a bunch of teams who are no strangers to BCS bowls. The conference will be back, and the SEC will fall from its level of play at some point too. It's cyclical ... happens to everyone.[/quote']

 

I think what you have had for the last several years in the ACC are quite a few solid to average teams with several really weak teams thrown in. There haven't been any elite teams in a while, but you still have some good teams around. I'm not exactly sure why it's been so long since the ACC had a serious national title threat (and it certainly doesn't have one this year either), but there hasn't been a powerhouse team in a while like Florida State and Miami used to be since the early 2000s. You have to think one of those teams will eventually get back to being like that, but I just don't go into the season any more thinking about a single ACC team when I think "Hmm, I wonder who will be in the national title picture this year".

[ORS]

I think what separates the SEC from every single conference is its depth. The top half of the conference speaks for itself, but when you get down to the bottom half you also have some very formidable teams who would finish a lot higher if they played in other conferences. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Tennessee - these three teams will likely be in the bottom half of the SEC but are far from automatic wins like you have in pretty much any other conference (the Washington State, Baylor, Iowa State, Duke, Syracuse, Purdue, etc type teams). Ole Miss and Vanderbilt also have some talent and can give you a game as well. You just don't have any off weeks. It's a constant grind. Playing an ACC/Big XII/Big East type schedule you know what weeks you have circled on your calender, and you know what weeks you're playing the weak sisters of the conference.

 

I also wouldn't throw in Northwestern with the other teams you mentioned, ORS. They're developing a pretty steady football program up in Evanston.

Only one of those teams you mentioned as an automatic win are in the ACC. Only one, and it's the one I identified in my previous post. The ACC, while lacking elite programs the last 4-5 years, has similar depth. NC State, UVA, Maryland, Wake Forrest, etc are likely to be in the bottom half of the ACC but can challenge you on any given week. Conference play in the ACC is no cake-walk either.

[msubulldogs21]

NC State' date=' UVA, Maryland, Wake Forrest, etc are likely to be in the bottom half of the ACC but can challenge you on any given week.[/quote']

 

Looking back at last year there were four ACC teams I would put in the awful category - Maryland, NC State, Duke, and Virginia.

 

This year I think Maryland is definitely improved, Virginia played USC tough the other night, but who knows about NC State and Duke. Probably more of the same I would bet.

 

Conference play in the ACC is no cake-walk either.

 

I agree, and it's always tough to pick ACC games but I also think that's more because they have a lot of average teams and no real dominant team like an Alabama or someone like that.

 

...I can't remember ORS, are you a Duke guy?

[schillingouttheks]

I would stand by a claim that stated UNC has the best defense in college football this year. They almost beat LSU without 7 defensive starters (and another 6 players, bringing the total to 13).

 

I still think UNC is a better team than LSU. I also thought UNC could definitely make some noise as a national title contender, but that ship has sailed with the loss to LSU. I think anything less than an ACC Championship is a disappointment for that squad, and they should definitely be thinking BCS bowl this season as an at large or the auto bid into the Orange Bowl.

[msubulldogs21]

I agree, SOTK. With a full squad I think UNC should run the ACC. Problem is for them, their offense leaves a lot to be desired. Their D is incredible though and should keep them in every game.

 

I wouldn't pick anyone over what Alabama trots out on D (even with losing a few guys to the NFL) but I would say UNC is a top three in the nation.

[ORS]

Looking back at last year there were four ACC teams I would put in the awful category - Maryland, NC State, Duke, and Virginia.

 

This year I think Maryland is definitely improved, Virginia played USC tough the other night, but who knows about NC State and Duke. Probably more of the same I would bet.

 

 

 

I agree, and it's always tough to pick ACC games but I also think that's more because they have a lot of average teams and no real dominant team like an Alabama or someone like that.

 

...I can't remember ORS, are you a Duke guy?

That's one year, though. To trend the quality of a conference, specifically the depth, I think it better to look at more than one year, as those middling to bottom teams from major conferences tend to have quite a bit of variance in the quality of team they field from year to year.

 

I follow Duke for men's hoops, but for football I'm a Hokie fan. I have no allegiance to one school because I went to college well after my favorites were decided. Long story short, I played a lot of competitve hoops in NoVa and most of the guys in the age groups above me in AAU ball went to Duke (Johnny Dawkins, Tommy Amaker, Grant Hill, Joey Beard). I like Tech because that is where I was going to go to school right out of HS, but decided to go work for a bit and passed on the opportunity. Most of my friends went there, and I'd regularly go down to Blacksburg for games.

 

Don't get me wrong, the SEC is the clear dominant conference over the last decade, but I think the ACC is catching a little more flack than they deserve. I can understand statements that talk about how bad it's been for them this year, but comments like "why does that conference get an automatic BCS bid" speak about a history of being not very good or worthy, and the history just doesn't suggest that, IMO.