Conference Realignment

[stinger78]

It always felt like the difference with NC State was that they usually won the games they were supposed to win. Whereas UNC, Miami, and Tech always had these wtf losses.

If you look over their record that is exactly what they do. They have had many bad mosses at all in the Doeran era, but they haven’t had many signature wins either. Pretty much getting their work done, which will get you 8-9 wins most seasons.

ETA: Had GT just gotten their work done last season, it would have resulted in 8-9 wins.

In the world of 13 games, 12 plus a bowl, getting 8 wins shouldn’t be terribly difficult.

 

[slugboy]

The cold, dead hand of Adam Smith is even pushing the NFL in new directions. There aren’t enough billionaire families with enough money to support teams in the manner the NFL would like, so they’re opening the rules to allow private equity firms:

Private equity in the NFL? How team ownership might shift

A move to allow private equity firms to invest in NFL teams would represent a large shift in how the league has historically operated.

www.espn.com

FSU also talked with private equity, for those that may not remember

 

[cpf2001]

It’s not “Miami has been a dumpster fire” it’s “Miami was brought in to be a top 10 team annually to boost the ACC’s profile” and they have been far, far, far away from that.

 

[stinger78]

It’s not “Miami has been a dumpster fire” it’s “Miami was brought in to be a top 10 team annually to boost the ACC’s profile” and they have been far, far, far away from that.

I get it, I really do. They haven’t lived up to that lofty expectations.

I was speaking to how Miami, even underperforming that top 10 expectation, still has played well enough most years to be a middle-middle ACC/SEC team. IOW… average… and not really hurting the ACC but not really helping it either.

For most seasons in their first 10 years in the league they lost 2 of 3 to FSU, VPI, and GT. For most of the last 10 seasons they’ve won 2 of the 3.

They are 20 games over .500 the last 10 seasons. That’s an average of 7-5. It’s not what was envisioned, but several good 7-5 teams in the middle of a conference speaks to the strength of a conference top to bottom.

This past season’s 7-win teams in the ACC were VA Tech, GA Tech, Miami, and Boston College. 8-win teams were UNC and Dook. 9-win teams were NCSU and Clemson. The conference was led by F$U and Louisville at 13-0 and 11-2 respectively.

 

[stinger78]

Nm

 

[cpf2001]

A program going from great to average certainly hurts a conference. Saying they’re average enough to not be hurting ignores the conference’s need for top teams and the reason they were brought in.

 

[stinger78]

A program going from great to average certainly hurts a conference. Saying they’re average enough to not be hurting ignores the conference’s need for top teams and the reason they were brought in.

No team stays at that level indefinitely. To hold that over any team speaks more to misplaced expectations than anything else, IMPO. I would say we brought them in to add a solid football program in the ACC. They have been that about half the time. We simply cannot hang our woes on Miami.

Miami has never won the ACC, and has only finished first in division play twice, IIRC. They certainly have not been the force expected, whether a top 10 team or not.

They have finished in the top 25 6x since they joined the ACC, about 22% of the time. That needs to be more, we agree on that.

 

[RonJohn]

I get it, I really do. They haven’t lived up to that lofty expectations.

I was speaking to how Miami, even underperforming that top 10 expectation, still has played well enough most years to be a middle-middle ACC/SEC team. IOW… average… and not really hurting the ACC but not really helping it either.

When Miami was added to the ACC, many thought that Miami and FSU would be playing each other in the ACC Championship game every year, and that the winner of that game would be a shoe in for the BCS game. That is why many commentators said that the ACC was about to become the best football conference. The weren't saying that the ACC was going to be closer to the SEC and Big10, they were saying that the ACC was going to be THE dominate conference. Miami has not performed to that level. Both teams were 7-9 win teams for several years after Miami joined. Not bad teams, but nowhere near competing for a spot in the BCS. Miami has been to only 1 ACC championship game, and it was not against FSU.

People have not been arguing that Miami has been a terrible team. They are arguing that Miami did not increase the perception of the ACC the way that they were projected to before they joined.

 

[stinger78]

When Miami was added to the ACC, many thought that Miami and FSU would be playing each other in the ACC Championship game every year, and that the winner of that game would be a shoe in for the BCS game. That is why many commentators said that the ACC was about to become the best football conference. The weren't saying that the ACC was going to be closer to the SEC and Big10, they were saying that the ACC was going to be THE dominate conference. Miami has not performed to that level. Both teams were 7-9 win teams for several years after Miami joined. Not bad teams, but nowhere near competing for a spot in the BCS. Miami has been to only 1 ACC championship game, and it was not against FSU.

People have not been arguing that Miami has been a terrible team. They are arguing that Miami did not increase the perception of the ACC the way that they were projected to before they joined.

I’ve seen numerous comments that they have sucked and are why the ACC is what it is. Anyone who hasn’t done so probably has an opinion of the matter quite close to mine.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I get it, I really do. They haven’t lived up to that lofty expectations.

I was speaking to how Miami, even underperforming that top 10 expectation, still has played well enough most years to be a middle-middle ACC/SEC team. IOW… average… and not really hurting the ACC but not really helping it either.

For most seasons in their first 10 years in the league they lost 2 of 3 to FSU, VPI, and GT. For most of the last 10 seasons they’ve won 2 of the 3.

They are 20 games over .500 the last 10 seasons. That’s an average of 7-5. It’s not what was envisioned, but several good 7-5 teams in the middle of a conference speaks to the strength of a conference top to bottom.

This past season’s 7-win teams in the ACC were VA Tech, GA Tech, Miami, and Boston College. 8-win teams were UNC and Dook. 9-win teams were NCSU and Clemson. The conference was led by F$U and Louisville at 13-0 and 11-2 respectively.

Miami being middle of the road hurts the ACC. Hearing every year the The U is back and then they fall to average hurts the ACC. Everything Miami has done has not been beneficial for the ACC. They have not delivered what was expected. Period. Same thing can be said for Virginia Tech. They were brought in right after Michael Vick and had a national presence.

 

[cpf2001]

All you need to know about “has Miami sucked” is how many coaches they fired. Different programs have different standards for “suck” and Miami holds themselves to a higher one than you are - to the one they haven’t met, that they were hoped to meet.

I’m not saying the ACC was doomed by them having a handful of average seasons; but their last 20 years have entirely, completely, failed to match the 20 years before that.

Like if the Big 10 had added 7-9 win GT and then gotten twenty years of 3-5 wins.

 

[reckrider]

Isn’t this a GT site? Why are we spending so much time talking about UM? I hate those bastids.

 

[reckrider]

Sorry, my mistake. I meant Duh U.

 

[cpf2001]

Isn’t this a GT site? Why are we spending so much time talking about UM? I hate those bastids.

Because Chan Gailey is the one that broke em.

 

[g0lftime]

I get it, I really do. They haven’t lived up to that lofty expectations.

I was speaking to how Miami, even underperforming that top 10 expectation, still has played well enough most years to be a middle-middle ACC/SEC team. IOW… average… and not really hurting the ACC but not really helping it either.

For most seasons in their first 10 years in the league they lost 2 of 3 to FSU, VPI, and GT. For most of the last 10 seasons they’ve won 2 of the 3.

They are 20 games over .500 the last 10 seasons. That’s an average of 7-5. It’s not what was envisioned, but several good 7-5 teams in the middle of a conference speaks to the strength of a conference top to bottom.

This past season’s 7-win teams in the ACC were VA Tech, GA Tech, Miami, and Boston College. 8-win teams were UNC and Dook. 9-win teams were NCSU and Clemson. The conference was led by F$U and Louisville at 13-0 and 11-2 respectively.

No longer playing Big East teams may have bumped up their competition. ACC is not nearly as bad as other conferences portray it. SEC fans have their ego wrapped up in the success of their teams and next on their conference. Miami was really on the edge in their "convict" days and very shady dealings with one particular booster. They have been good but not great since entering the ACC

 

[Jacket20]

Miami being middle of the road hurts the ACC. Hearing every year the The U is back and then they fall to average hurts the ACC. Everything Miami has done has not been beneficial for the ACC. They have not delivered what was expected. Period. Same thing can be said for Virginia Tech. They were brought in right after Michael Vick and had a national presence.

Maybe they are what they have always been. Playing and winning the Big East didn't mean they were going to dominate the ACC.

 

[stinger78]

No longer playing Big East teams may have bumped up their competition. ACC is not nearly as bad as other conferences portray it. SEC fans have their ego wrapped up in the success of their teams and next on their conference. Miami was really on the edge in their "convict" days and very shady dealings with one particular booster. They have been good but not great since entering the ACC

These are pretty much my thoughts. Miami has not lived up to our expectations coming in, no doubt. Not having that additional top shelf team hurt. VPI held up their end for about 10 years, and BC through the Matt Ryan era. Miami was also quite good through about 2006, IIRC, and still tough for several years after that. Yes, on Miami’s part, after the NCAA probation they have struggled to perform consistently.

Maybe, as was said above, the ACC was a better league and that impacted their performance, too. They were tough for a couple of years under Richt. At any rate, it would help if they got it straightened out.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

All you need to know about “has Miami sucked” is how many coaches they fired. Different programs have different standards for “suck” and Miami holds themselves to a higher one than you are - to the one they haven’t met, that they were hoped to meet.

I’m not saying the ACC was doomed by them having a handful of average seasons; but their last 20 years have entirely, completely, failed to match the 20 years before that.

Like if the Big 10 had added 7-9 win GT and then gotten twenty years of 3-5 wins.

I think the bigger problem is at the AD level or who ever keeps hiring these bad coaches. They may want better as an organaziation but they have no idea how to get back there

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Imagine what the ACC would have looked like had FSU, Miami had stayed the same and keep VT occasionally in the hunt as a top 10 team just like GT. Even Virginia back in the day was a national contender. Just like Pitt.

I do think the ACC leaders did one of the worlds worst job from a marketing the product perspective. Hell the ACC had a better record over the SEC last year and almost nothing from those so called leaders. Its odd to think that Paul Johnson did a better job of marketing the conference over the SEC when he was compared to the whole leadership of the ACC

 

[cpf2001]

“Miami only looked good because the Big East was bad” is a fun take. They had plenty of good ooc wins and staggering NFL talent in their dominant run, neither of those have been close to the same level since.