ACC Bowl Action

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
Let's look at recent/next Bowl Games with my points/drive stat.
BC #68 (-1.67 ppddif) 36 -- MD #62 (-1.14) 30
NCSt #42 (-0.36) 41 - Vandy #41 (-0.35) 17

WF #47 (-0.5) - Temple (unranked, not enough pwr5 opp)
Pitt #29 (0.18) - NU #23 (0.33)
d'ohU #17 (0.66) - WV #11 (.89)

If the MD in the BC game is an indicator of B1G strength, then Pitt should be able to handle NU. The Miami game should be a good one.
 
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
Let's look at recent/next Bowl Games with my points/drive stat.
BC #68 (-1.67 ppddif) 36 -- MD #62 (-1.14) 30
NCSt #42 (-0.36) 41 - Vandy #41 (-0.35) 17

WF #47 (-0.5) - Temple (unranked, not enough pwr5 opp)
Pitt #29 (0.18) - NU #23 (0.33)
d'ohU #17 (0.66) - WV #11 (.89)

If the MD in the BC game is an indicator of B1G strength, then Pitt should be able to handle NU. The Miami game should be a good one.
TV shows Temple is ranked #24
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
I don't know what "he" is basing it on, but you look at the box on the screen now, and you see Temple is number 24 with a 10-3 record.
Meanwhile, Wake is reeling after their QB left with an injury.

As the he to which @kittysniper101 referred and understood correctly, let me explain.

In my earlier post to which you replied earlier, I said "with my points/drive stat." Then, when I gave the ranking for BC as #68, I put in parentheses their ppddif. After that I put the ppddif in parentheses after each ranking without labelling it. So, I intended to be clear what I was basing it on and apologize that I wasn't.

That ppddif is their average point/drive against power5 opponents minus the average points/drive which they've allowed versus power5 opponents. I don't rank teams that play fewer than 3 pwr5 opponents.

In other threads, I've shown how ranking based on this stat compares to the AP ranking.

Sorry for the confusion.
 

FightWinDrink

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,269
Lol they are celebrating like they won the championship
to be fair they were 3-9 the last 2 seasons, haven't won a bowl game since 2008 (also last time they finished with a winning record), and just beat a 10 win ranked team. That's pretty good for Wake Forest. They have the lowest winning % historically of all P5 schools. Yes, worse than Kansas, Vanderbilt, Indiana, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
to be fair they were 3-9 the last 2 seasons, haven't won a bowl game since 2008 (also last time they finished with a winning record), and just beat a 10 win ranked team. That's pretty good for Wake Forest. They have the lowest winning % historically of all P5 schools. Yes, worse than Kansas, Vanderbilt, Indiana, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc.

And to be fair further, they kind of won the American championship.
 

FightWinDrink

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,269
Amazing how much better the ACC is now than it was when GT faced off against Wake in 2006 for the ACC championship.
IMO the talent has always been there. just look how many NFL players come out of the ACC. If I remember right it's the #2 conference for producing NFL players. The coaching was just not very good for a long time and the conference has massively upgraded it's coaching from top to bottom since then.
 

FredJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,057
Location
Fredericksburg, Virginia
A little off topic...but want to address the bowl season (in general)...

We're 20 games into the 41 game bowl schedule. Lots of folks poo poo the notion that there are too many bowls. I am not that guy. I'm fine with 40 bowls...fine with over 60% of FBS schools playing that extra game. I don't claim there is some objective or subjective 'cutoff' where teams are "deserving" of one extra game. I'm able to see a 6-6 team playing an extra game for what it is... it's a good deal. It seems to me its really just market driven. If you have the sponsor/financing to put on a game, invite a couple of teams & you have a win-win. The SA's benefit... the programs benefit... and the fanbase have one more game to get excited about... theoretically.

If you like college football, even these early games have been entertaining. By my count, 12 of the 20 games have ended within one score. I've watched a few and have enjoyed the action. Sometimes it's ugly... but that's ok. We are now entering the phase of bowl season where the quality of play should be improving.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,636
Location
Georgia
A little off topic...but want to address the bowl season (in general)...

We're 20 games into the 41 game bowl schedule. Lots of folks poo poo the notion that there are too many bowls. I am not that guy. I'm fine with 40 bowls...fine with over 60% of FBS schools playing that extra game. I don't claim there is some objective or subjective 'cutoff' where teams are "deserving" of one extra game. I'm able to see a 6-6 team playing an extra game for what it is... it's a good deal. It seems to me its really just market driven. If you have the sponsor/financing to put on a game, invite a couple of teams & you have a win-win. The SA's benefit... the programs benefit... and the fanbase have one more game to get excited about... theoretically.

If you like college football, even these early games have been entertaining. By my count, 12 of the 20 games have ended within one score. I've watched a few and have enjoyed the action. Sometimes it's ugly... but that's ok. We are now entering the phase of bowl season where the quality of play should be improving.

Imo when a 5-7 team is in a bowl we have a problem. It doesnt mean you cant match two bad teams and get a close entertaining game. But 5-7 teams dont need to be in bowls. Teams with a 2-6 and 3-6 in conf record dont need to be in a bowl.

We are slowly approaching participation trophy status with our bowls.

I am all for reducing this thing to 30 bowls or less. Thats just me
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,635
Imo when a 5-7 team is in a bowl we have a problem. It doesnt mean you cant match two bad teams and get a close entertaining game. But 5-7 teams dont need to be in bowls. Teams with a 2-6 and 3-6 in conf record dont need to be in a bowl.

We are slowly approaching participation trophy status with our bowls.

I am all for reducing this thing to 30 bowls or less. Thats just me
Agree!
I have seen some awful football in the last few days. I saw better coaching in the Dome for the HS games.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,636
Location
Georgia
Maybe for me, college football is like pizza or sex...

When it's good it's good... and when it's bad, it's still pretty good.

I will never have sex with a big fat ugly girl, i would rather deal with a stomach virus and puke all day. So 5-7 teams dont need to be in a bowl. But freddy to each their own ;)
 
Top