2021 ACC and Competition News

bensaysitathome

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
677
After lasts nights game ESPN had a graphic with the percent chance to win the Coastal. We were currently 3rd with a 17% chance, VT was 2nd @18%, and Pitt was first having yet to play a conference game at like 36%.

I would say if we win tomorrow we would be the odds on favorite to win the division based on ESPN's calculations as VT doesn't play and we would have 2 conference wins.

Watching SVP after the game, they actually made an error and showed the chart as if Miami had won. It listed GT as a 13% chance. They laughed it off, and when it was corrected to a UVA win, our chances had jumped to 16%.

So...at least according to whatever formula they're using, UVA winning was worth 3% for us. 🤷‍♂️
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,951
You are missing the point. People here are arguing—specifically in regard to expanding the college playoff to 8 or 12 teams—that the #3 team in the SEC should not make it in before one of the other P5(4) champions makes it in. The point is not that non-conference-champions get in, it’s that other conference champions are being left out in favor of a 2nd-place team (soon to be 3rd place, if the $EC gets their way) in the “superior” conference.

Would it be reasonable to you if the AFC East champion was left out of the NFL playoffs entirely, just because the “consensus” was that the #3 NFC West team was “better”?
I get the point fully. I’m in agreement with it. I don’t want to see an 8 team playoff with 3-4 SEC or B1G teams in it, or a 16 team playoff with 4-5 teams from the same conference in it.

I’m just simply asking the question about why is college football the only North American sport where fans think a team that doesn’t win their league/division shouldn’t have a shot at the championship?

IMO the entire current FBS/conference system is busted and in need of a major redo. 14+ team conferences are ridiculous. The NFL has 16 teams in their conferences and they play 3 rounds of playoffs to determine their conference champion. College conferences have 14ish teams and they play one game to determine their champion.

I’m not advocating for more SEC teams in the playoff. All I want to know is why is college football the only sport where teams who don’t win their division in the regular season shunned as not legit?
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,804
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Last year’s New Orleans Saints team would disagree with you there. They beat the Bucs twice in the regular season by a combined score of 72-26 and won the division. In the playoffs the Bucs beat them and won the Super Bowl soundly, and yet nobody doubts them as a legit champion. It’s just weird to me that college football is the only North American sport where there’s such a debate about non conference champions being eligible for the national championship.

The Braves will likely have the lowest regular season win total in the MLB but will have a much easier path to the World Series than the 4 Wild Card teams who will have more wins than them. One of those Wild Card teams will have at least 14 more wins than the Braves. Because of the disparity of talent in college football it’s much easier to discern teams based on the eye test than most other sports. Since the playoff started it’s been very easy to spot who the 4 best teams in the country are every year. Very rarely have there been any instances of it feeling like teams got cheated. 2014 when Baylor and TCU got left out has really been the only legitimately controversial playoff decision
I understand your point, but you’re talking about the Pros where the leagues are intentionally designed to create parity. The Pros are like communism while the college game is like capitalism.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,074
I don't want an expanded playoff until it's limited to 2 teams (max) from each conference. If you're not at least playing for the conference championship, you really have no business with a chance at the National Championship.
The bad news for you is that your way of thinking is not the majority any more. At this point it’s all about the money and no one cares about conference titles. Those days are long gone. I believe that following the money will lead to more fairness by the field expanding. And I’m not talking about the next iteration. I’m talking 2-3 more iterations down the line when it’s over 24 plus teams in the playoff. As a GT fan I can’t wait to see when my team finally has a chance in those years we catch lightening. We went from media losers picking teams in their region to be given Nattys to the BCS where a cabal of ESPN picked administrators picked 2 teams to play to a playoff with a committee now picking 4. The next iteration will be 8-12. Once those ratings come in huge and campuses are packed for 1st round games it will go to 16plus. Then the next iteration will be in the 20’s. Everyone knows it’s coming because more schools get left out than get in and money always wins.
 

85Escape

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,450
The bad news for you is that your way of thinking is not the majority any more.
Yep, and Forty Million Frenchmen don't make it Right.

There is a way to do all of it....more money overall, more meaning behind conferences and more teams with a shot.
(TL;DR summary of spoiler: A Brilliant Master Plan For College Football)

Go (sort of back) to max conference size of 8 schools (16 conferences) regionally....by state or two where possible (e.g., GT, GA, GSt, GSo, KS, Clem, USCe, CC)
  • All BCS schools are in the running equally (no P5, G5).
  • Ten game regular season (7 conference, 1 FCS game, 2 ooc games) during the season.
  • Only conference games count for Championship Qualification
  • Top two schools (re)play at regular-season winner's home in a Conference Championship game (16 games)
  • Champions enter seeded Championship Series (where the three ooc games matter) (8 games)
  • Quarter Finals on New Years Eve/Day (4 games)
  • Semi Finals 7-11 days later on a Saturday (2 games)
  • Finals one/two weeks later...on a freaking Saturday Night (1 game)

31 "Post-season" games for money to be made by all. And there is nothing stopping other 'Bowl' games for other teams either...they would be no more nor less meaningful than most current bowl games.

So it's not just about the total money, it's about how one or two (non-profit) conferences + Disney have rigged the system to get way more money than everyone else.

I believe it's why we are seeing all the movement for players to be treated as employees, which I think will ultimately destroy the sport.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,475
An advanced stats preview favoring BC over Clemson


Also has Wake over Louisville and Cincy over ND
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
8,804
Location
North Shore, Chicago
The bad news for you is that your way of thinking is not the majority any more. At this point it’s all about the money and no one cares about conference titles. Those days are long gone. I believe that following the money will lead to more fairness by the field expanding. And I’m not talking about the next iteration. I’m talking 2-3 more iterations down the line when it’s over 24 plus teams in the playoff. As a GT fan I can’t wait to see when my team finally has a chance in those years we catch lightening. We went from media losers picking teams in their region to be given Nattys to the BCS where a cabal of ESPN picked administrators picked 2 teams to play to a playoff with a committee now picking 4. The next iteration will be 8-12. Once those ratings come in huge and campuses are packed for 1st round games it will go to 16plus. Then the next iteration will be in the 20’s. Everyone knows it’s coming because more schools get left out than get in and money always wins.
Disagree. Feel pretty confident the Alliance is not going to allow the SEC to stack an expanded playoff.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,850
I think following the money will make college football less competition not more, that will be the outcome of basically going to a pure capitalism model for college athletics.
We are heading to a place where there are only 10-12 programs nationally that will compete for the national title regardless of how many teams are invited.
There is also likely a limit that will be reached in terms of how many weeks they allow them to play.

The teams that will compete for national titles are the teams that can raise the money to pay for 50-60 analyst positions and can pay more for talent.
There are only a handful of programs generating that type of money.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,850
Every team in this has significant flaws. Teams like Clemson and VT have really strong defenses but weak offenses. You have teams like Pitt that have great offenses, but mediocre defenses.

Clemson's defense hasn't allowed more than 14 points in regulation this season, but their offense hasn't scored more than 19 points in regulation against a P5 opponent. That's sort of amazing when you think about it.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,830
Location
Albany Georgia
Every team in this has significant flaws. Teams like Clemson and VT have really strong defenses but weak offenses. You have teams like Pitt that have great offenses, but mediocre defenses.

Clemson's defense hasn't allowed more than 14 points in regulation this season, but their offense hasn't scored more than 19 points in regulation against a P5 opponent. That's sort of amazing when you think about it.
Boy howdy, Frank Howard would have given his eyeteeth for a defense like that back in the day. He would have won a bunch of ACC championships and beat Tech at least a few times although Tech's defense was very good back then too. It is hard to believe but there was time within living memory that Clemson, Duke, and North Carolina were the class of the ACC.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,216
When Wake Forest is at the top of a Conference's power rankings...that conference is :sick:

Not taking anything away from Wake though. Their coach is REALLY good and big programs need to look at him. Their QB Sam Hartman is a baller...watched him in QB1 series on Amazon Prime. He followed his coach from a good program in the suburbs of Charlotte to some small backwater private school. He led their team to the playoffs his first year. That school was winless the year before. I see all the time in recruiting threads that Player X didn't have the talent around him that's why his numbers were not good. There's a QB we signed a couple of years ago (he has since transferred) that our fanbase defended with that excuse because his HS numbers were really below average even at the HS level. Hartman is an example of a QB that "raises all boats"...that's the kind of player you want to recruit. Hartman is now doing the same thing at Wake along with his college coach. He's helping to "raise all boats" in the Wake program.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,475
Over to Miami. Looks like they need to bring Randy Shannon back as Recruiting Coordinator/DC/AHC and Richt back as HC/OC.
Good news for them—they’ve gone to decent bowls. Bad news—they’ve lost. Richt is the only UM coach to win a bowl in his first three seasons. (yes, I would like to “just” go bowling, but Miami has recruited in the top 25 more than not over the past 20+ years and often in the top 10)

 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,074
Disagree. Feel pretty confident the Alliance is not going to allow the SEC to stack an expanded playoff.
Ha ha ha. Did you really say the “Alliance”? It’s a figment of your imagination. It’s not real. They’ll talk a good game and then teams will defect all along. It’s about money and that’s it. The problem is the SEC knows it’s about money, TV know it’s about money, and the so called Alliance knows its about money. But the Alliance is the only one pretending it’s about anything else (integrity, history, academics, you name it). I may not like the SEC and wish the Alliance were right, but I stopped believing in Santa Claus a long time ago. Money always changes the equation.
 
Top