Quote :

"Wake lost by 3 to Nebraska"

Who was just mauled by Kansas...they aren't even receiving votes in any of the polls, way to make an argument for the ACC.

Quote :

"Maryland lost to W. Virginia but knocked off Rutgers"

Who also isn't even ranked or receiving votes and is 6th in their conference. Again, you're making arguments AGAINST the ACC.

Quote :

"Miami (who just lost to us) also got beat badly by Oklahoma but knocked off Texas A&M"

Who isn't ranked, or receiving votes, and is 4th...IN THEIR DIVISION witha 6-4 record. Quality win there!

Quote :

"Carolina only lost by 6 to South Carolina"

SC had a nice start, but they too are now 4th in their division with a lackluster 6-4 record, unranked, and barely receiving votes.

Of the ones you mentioned the Alabama win could be considered quality, and the UConn one barely.

Yup, the ACC is solid!

11/5/2007 11:59:39 AM

Quote :

"I think it's funny how you guys think the ACC is somehow better than the Big 10. They might be having a down year, but c'mon, most those teams would ROLL on the ACC squads."

What support do you have for these statements? I don't have time to look up the stats right now, which I don't put a lot of stock into anyway, and I don't know the head to head records between the 2 conferences, but I seriously doubt a comparable (in conference ranking) Big 10 school would roll on their counterpart from the acc.

I agree Ohio State would win over BC, although it would be close.
Michigan would probably win over Virginia, depending on which Michigan team showed up to play.

After that I don't see any Big 10 team as a lock to beat their counterpart. Actually I would put money on the acc to win the majority of the rest of the games between the two conferences.

Speed kills and Michigan and Ohio State are the only Big Ten teams w/ any semblance of team speed. And even that's debatable considering how Florida ran over, under, around, and through Ohio State in last year's Title game. And one of the biggest reasons Michigan lost to App State is because they had trouble containing their mobile qb and wide receivers.

So even conceding Ohio State and probably Michigan would win over most teams in the acc doesn't automatically make the Big Ten a better conference. That's like saying the Pac-10 was better than the SEC in the years USC won the BCS. One or two teams doesn't make a conference better than another. At least not top to bottom.

11/5/2007 12:12:16 PM

^^ I'm not try to say the ACC is good this year, because I don't think they are, but your Wake argument is flawed.

Wake was playing w/ their crappy second string qb against Nebraska because Skinner was hurt. And Nebraska was playing their second string qb against Kansas because their starter, Keller, was hurt. Given all that it's not surprising Wake lost in a close one to Nebraska. Nor is it surprising that a crumbling Nebraska team lost to an undefeated Kansas. Unless your questioning the validity of Kansas being undefeated because the Big 12 is weak too. You can't have it both ways.

11/5/2007 12:17:15 PM

Quote :

"Unless your questioning the validity of Kansas being undefeated because the Big 12 is weak too"

I'm pretty sure NC State has more quality wins than Kansas does. They miss out on OU and Texas and don't play Mizzou until the final game...

I actually think the ACC is better than the Big 10 this year personally.

Iowa, Minnesota and Northwestern are just flat awful. Duke beat NW for fuck's sake. Penn State, Mich St, Indiana and Illionois are all inconsistent. No one really know is Michigan is any good considering they beat a shitty ass ND team and then got into conference play after losing HUGE to a very good Oregon and losing to App State. Is it a matter of Michigan playing better or the Big 10 sucking huge donkey balls? I don't know...

5th best out of 6 from top to bottom isn't bad is it?

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 12:38 PM. Reason : x]

11/5/2007 12:34:58 PM

^^^Illinois is a pretty "fast" team

this is how the ACC would matchup with the Big Ten, in order of rank:

Ohio State - Boston College
Michigan - Virginia
Illinois - Virginia Tech
Penn State - Clemson
Wisconsin - Wake Forest
Purdue - Florida State
Iowa - Miami (FL)
Indiana - NC State
Northwestern - UNC
Michigan State - Georgia Tech
Minnesota - Maryland

excluded: Duke

make with that what you will

11/5/2007 12:43:27 PM

I truly believe it goes in Cycles....all the top teams now have had their times when they were down for a couple years. It just so happens that the ACC is a little down right now. It has nothing to do with the conf getting bigger, and my point was that no matter how bad a conf is there is no way that they ever consider taking a couple years off from football. At the end of the day it is (as you all know) one if the not the biggest money maker for most schools !! that is why the idea of taking a couple years off is ridiculous in my opinion.

11/5/2007 12:48:17 PM

^^ Well, just looking at what you have there, I would say in the bottom seven match-ups, the acc would go 5-2. In the top four I would think it would either be 1-3 in favor of the Big Ten or all even at 2-2. So that either leaves the head-to-head comparison in favor of the acc at 7-4 or 6-5. Either way the Big Ten wouldn't "Roll" over the ACC.

11/5/2007 12:55:09 PM

I'll add onto my last post with comparisons between a few different conferences, in order of rank:

Big Ten----------ACC--------------SEC-----------Big East---------Pac10----------Big12
Ohio State--------Boston College--LSU---------UConn---------Arizona St.-----Kansas
Michigan----------Virginia---------Georgia------West Virginia---Oregon--------Oklahoma
Illinois------------Virginia Tech----Auburn------Cincinnati-------USC-----------Missou
Penn State-------Clemson---------Alabama----Louisville--------UCLA----------Texas
Wisconsin--------Wake Forest-----Tennessee---Pittsburgh------Cal------------Ok. St
Purdue-----------Florida State------Florida------Rutgers-------Oregon St.-----Texas Tech
Iowa--------------Miami (FL)------Arkansas-----South Florida---Arizona-------Texas A&M
Indiana-----------NC State--------South Car.----Syracuse------Stanford------Kan. St
Northwestern------UNC------------Kentucky-------------------Washington-----Colorado
Michigan State----Georgia Tech----Miss. State-----------------Wash. St.------Nebraska
Minnesota---------Maryland--------Vanderbilt----------------------------------Iowa St.
-------------------Duke------------Ole Miss-----------------------------------Baylor



[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/5/2007 1:02:05 PM

Seeing that list, as unformatted as it is, almost makes me laugh when people say the SEC isn't the best conference... They would steamroll every conference with the possible exception of the Pac-10.

Also, it doesn't present the best picture b/c at this point in the year a lot of the best teams aren't at the top of their conferences... which will change.

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : x]

11/5/2007 1:06:35 PM

^^ I think we would match up pretty well with the Big East as well. And potentially the Big 12. It's hard to say because there haven't been that many games between the two. Miami played a terrible game against Oklahoma, and Oklahoma is no slouch anyway. And considering Miami lost to us at home, I wouldn't consider them the cream of the ACC crop by anymeans. See my above comments on Wake and Nebraska as well.

^ Agreed

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : adsf]

11/5/2007 1:07:08 PM

There might be some argument about where teams are ranked, but I did it based on their conference record, and if there was a tie, their overall record

I know it doesnt mean much, just a little breakdown to show the depth of each conference

11/5/2007 1:09:44 PM

well, I was kinda hoping that my post above would spark some debate in here or something

guess I did all that work for nothing

at least I got paid for it

11/5/2007 2:12:45 PM

Quote :

"[#1]Wake was playing w/ their crappy second string qb against Nebraska because Skinner was hurt. [#2]And Nebraska was playing their second string qb against Kansas because their starter, Keller, was hurt. Given all that it's not surprising Wake lost in a close one to Nebraska. Nor is it surprising that a crumbling Nebraska team lost to an undefeated Kansas. Unless your questioning the validity of Kansas being undefeated because the Big 12 is weak too. You can't have it both ways."

Did you forget your original argument? It was that the WFU win over Nebraska is somehow noteworthy to the strength of the ACC.

#1 Their backup QB still passed for 140 yards, he happened to throw 2 picks. They ran for 236. They passed for 215 (with Skinner through 2 picks) and only rushed for 180 in the win against FSU. So what are you trying to say about the Quarterbacking?
#2 Thats great does NEB's QB being hurt affect their defense too? I suppose you could say they were on the field longer, but thats a pretty weak argument considering Kansas only scored 7 of their 76 in the 4th quarter. Kansas threw for 350 and rushed for 218. Nebraska is garbage.

11/5/2007 2:35:20 PM

terrible, terrible, terrible thread

displays zero foresight

11/5/2007 2:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Wake lost by 3 to Nebraska" Who was just mauled by Kansas...they aren't even receiving votes in any of the polls, way to make an argument for the ACC. Quote : "Maryland lost to W. Virginia but knocked off Rutgers" Who also isn't even ranked or receiving votes and is 6th in their conference. Again, you're making arguments AGAINST the ACC. Quote : "Miami (who just lost to us) also got beat badly by Oklahoma but knocked off Texas A&M" Who isn't ranked, or receiving votes, and is 4th...IN THEIR DIVISION witha 6-4 record. Quality win there! Quote : "Carolina only lost by 6 to South Carolina" SC had a nice start, but they too are now 4th in their division with a lackluster 6-4 record, unranked, and barely receiving votes. Of the ones you mentioned the Alabama win could be considered quality, and the UConn one barely. Yup, the ACC is solid! "

You fail to comprehend...obviously the ACC is not far worse than these other conferences...I fail to see how a win over UConn is barely considered quality. The entire point is that when you look at the games lost and won by the ACC it's pretty close. Of course there are a couple of stand out teams. Outside of that everything is pretty even. You can't take the top team in a conference and say that team is better than all ACC teams, therefore their confrence is better...it doesn't make sense. The ACC has held its own in out of conference play this year with bottom feeder ACC teams beating and giving tough games to middle-upper ranked teams from other conferences.

11/5/2007 3:25:13 PM

Look noob, you're gonna have to do a better job than that if you are going to get any respect around here.

I fail to comprehend what? Where did I say the ACC is "far worse"? If you think the win over UCONN is a quality win, support your statement.

Quote :

"The entire point is that when you look at the games lost and won by the ACC it's pretty close."

Are you kidding? The guy you are trying to agree with got most of his examples demolished by me. You are going to have to do more work than "pretty close" if I am going to take you seriously.

Quote :

"Of course there are a couple of stand out teams. Outside of that everything is pretty even."

I'm eager to see your stats/case other than just a statement alone.

Quote :

"You can't take the top team in a conference and say that team is better than all ACC teams, therefore their confrence is better...it doesn't make sense."

No one in this thread did that.

Quote :

"The ACC has held its own in out of conference play this year with bottom feeder ACC teams beating and giving tough games to middle-upper ranked teams from other conferences."

Care to post some examples? Duke hasn't beaten anyone. GT sans Tashard Choice is just terrible. UMd as I pointed out to earlier beat no one. UNC looked pretty good against an SC team that everyone thought was legit early, and now we see that was a bit premature. And last I checked "giving tough games" doesn't really register many points in the "this conference is better than that conference" category.

Try your argument again.

11/5/2007 3:50:06 PM

Quote :

"If you think the win over UCONN is a quality win, support your statement."

I can do that. They are in the Top 5 in total defense, have 3 wins over Top 40 computer teams, are 8-1 and ranked 13th in the BCS, have one of the most dynamic young RBs in the country and their takeaway/giveaway ratio is #2 in the country. They are legit, as far as a non-tradiotional power goes... The only reason UVa won that game, though, was because the QB didn't use a silent count deep in UVa's territory a few plays before a potential game-winning FG.

I agree with you for the most part. The ACC was a better conference top to bottom during P-Riv's years than it is now.. for sure.

11/5/2007 3:52:49 PM

Quote :

"have 3 wins over Top 40 computer teams"

Hmmm.

11/5/2007 3:59:47 PM

Actually, I was wrong. I was thinking Louisville for some reason and not Cincy. If they win next week it will be 3 over Top 40 computers. FWIW, some teams with the same or fewer wins against Top 40 teams:

Clemson - 1
Southern Cal - 0
Kansas - 0
Boston College - 1
Oklahoma - 2
Texas - 1 (and it was the #39)

** And if you're wondering why I chose 40 that is the lowest ranked team that gets BCS points in the Harris/Coaches polls...

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM. Reason : x]

11/5/2007 4:16:29 PM

Are you talking about wins when the team was ranked, or as of this week? Because that could be a different picture.

Also, lets restrict this to top 25. It isn't exactly noteworthy to beat a team...that isn't ranked, especially when folks are trying to make a case for the better talent of the conference beating good teams.

11/5/2007 4:32:13 PM

As of this week. I don't care what teams beat Nebraska when they were extremely overrated in September... There are always some pretty shitty ranked teams and some really, really good unranked teams (Oregon I believe was unranked to start the year) in the early part of the year. Current rankings paint a far better pitcure.

Really, I agree with you... but based on today, and it could change, UVa beating UConn is probably the most quality win the ACC has this year. They are near Top 10 in the computers (I think their average is 11) and 13 in the BCS. Now that could change, but quality wins should be changing based on the season. When Maryland beat Rutgers they were #12. I don't think anyone in the country thinks Rutgers is even Top 35 worthy, let alone 12.

11/5/2007 4:36:50 PM

its simple the acc still doesn't throw the $ at football that the sec does.

11/5/2007 4:39:19 PM

I wasn't trying to bias it towards my side with the last comment in regards to when the win was had (ie in the past when a currently unranked team was ranked). Thats why I was saying restrict it to top 25, and how does UConn fare against those other teams you listed?

It might be the same, but I look at the UConn wins, and they have none against the current top 25.

Neither do Texas and USC.

Clemson at 0.

Kansas at 0.

BC at 1 over VT.

So, not too much to be drawn from that stat restricting it to the Top 25.

11/5/2007 4:54:30 PM

The SEC and PAC-10 are clearly the best conferences in the nation this year. The other four are not even close, but the ACC is not much worse than the Big East or the Big 12.

11/5/2007 5:29:49 PM

Quote :

""[#1]Wake was playing w/ their crappy second string qb against Nebraska because Skinner was hurt. [#2]And Nebraska was playing their second string qb against Kansas because their starter, Keller, was hurt. Given all that it's not surprising Wake lost in a close one to Nebraska. Nor is it surprising that a crumbling Nebraska team lost to an undefeated Kansas. Unless your questioning the validity of Kansas being undefeated because the Big 12 is weak too. You can't have it both ways." Did you forget your original argument? It was that the WFU win over Nebraska is somehow noteworthy to the strength of the ACC. #1 Their backup QB still passed for 140 yards, he happened to throw 2 picks. They ran for 236. They passed for 215 (with Skinner through 2 picks) and only rushed for 180 in the win against FSU. So what are you trying to say about the Quarterbacking? #2 Thats great does NEB's QB being hurt affect their defense too? I suppose you could say they were on the field longer, but thats a pretty weak argument considering Kansas only scored 7 of their 76 in the 4th quarter. Kansas threw for 350 and rushed for 218. Nebraska is garbage."

Where did I say "WFU's win" over Nebraska is worthy of respect? My original argument was that the Wake loss to Nebraska was due the fact that they were w/out their starting qb. If Skinner had played, they would have scorched Nebraska the same way Kansas did. And Nebraska scored 39 against Kansas w/ their second string qb. It's obvious their offense can put up points. It's not at all surprising a Wake team w/ no passing attack (because Skinner was out) would lose to someone who can put up points of their own, READ NEBRASKA. Therefore Wake's loss to Nebraska shouldn't carry as much weight when determining where the ACC ranks in comparison w/ the other BCS conferences. And don't you think all of this talk about their coach being fired at the end of the season might mess with the Nebraska players' heads a little bit? We were dominated by ECU and UNC last season while in the same kind of situation. I agree that Nebraska is on the skids and their defense was clearly owned by Kansas, but their plight is probably due to more than meets the eye.

And did you seriously try to compare this year's Nebraska's defense to FSU's? You compared Nebraska's D, the same D that you tore a new one for giving up 76 to Kansas, to FSU's defense. The same FSU defense that owned Matt Ryan and Boston College the other night. Oh, but I'm sure you'll chalk this up to BC being part of the ACC and therefore they are garbage as well. Except for the fact that this is the same FSU defense that helped their team beat Alabama. What conference is Alabama in again? Oh, that's right, they're in the SEC. I thought the ACC sucked too bad to even think about winning over an SEC team. What now Chance?

11/5/2007 8:06:28 PM

I just think that it is funny because in 2005 the media was saying that the ACC was the toughest conference from top to bottom with these teams finishing at

Virginia Tech #7
Miami #17
Boston College #18
Clemson #21
Florida State #23

If Georgia Tech wouldn't have fallen out and the ACC teams would have beat their opponents in a more convincing fashion you could have said that the expansion was a great success. Two down years really makes a big difference on the image of the conference. If the ACC could do expansion again who do you think we should have considered to beef up our football/all around sports? These are a few that I would have considered even though we have a few of them now in the conference:

Boston College
Syracuse
Miami
Penn State
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
UConn
Pittsburgh
Rutgers

I think that Miami, and Virginia Tech are keepers but I think that we would have had better success if we picked up either Penn State, Pittsburgh, or West Virginia. The only reason that I can see why we didn't pick up some of these schools is because of poor academics (West Virginia) and the fact that Duke and Wake Forest were probably pushing really hard to pick up more private, academically sound schools besides Miami.

11/5/2007 10:07:30 PM

^ Penn State would never leave the Big 10. Just sayin.

And UConn didn't have a football team until like five years ago. They're doing well now, but when the ACC was expanding, nobody thought they would be worth a damn in football in the near future.

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 11:37 PM. Reason : adsf]

11/5/2007 11:19:10 PM

Quote :

"academically sound schools besides Miami."

Haha something about that just sounds terrible.

I mean we are talking about football here.

11/5/2007 11:35:07 PM

I know it sounds terrible but it is even worse when you consider that Miami is not a very well thought of school for academics (I have had 3 members of my family go there and they will tell you that).

Keeping to football though, the ACC should not get rid of football for a year because besides losing millions of dollars going to all the ACC schools that will kill the league all around as the SEC will have a strangle hold on the south. Virginia Tech is the only true football school that we have that we know can win 10 to 11 games and keep the conference in the national title talk until Miami, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech get back to their former selves. I have to admit that as a big football fan the ACC is shameful to watch as every game seems to be a defensive struggle until the OC's decide to open up the play page... i mean book and start slinging the rock around. I want to believe that expansion was good for the conference but at the same time I think that the only winner to come out of the expansion is the Hokies as they collect a nice check from a big time conference and inflate their overall rankings. It is funny because the expansion has done better for basketball than it has for football.

11/6/2007 3:33:59 AM

Another week of the ACC being exposed.

If the BC and Miami losses don't seal this as a terrible conference I don't know what will.

Are we going to even have anyone left to play in a BCS bowl? I think we should forfeit our spot even if they do award us one.

11/11/2007 2:56:29 PM

You're either the biggest dumbass or biggest troll on this board. Probably a bit of both.

How does BC and Miami losing expose the ACC as being anything other than a competitive conference? BC lost in a close one to a fired up Maryland squad, but even when BC was winning every game earlier in the year, the game's were close. The breaks just didn't go there way this game.

And Miami getting creamed by the No. 1 team in their side of the conference is to be expected. Especially considering Miami is in a rebuilding year with no semblance of an offense.

So the ACC doesn't have any teams with less than two losses. I'll let you in on a little secret, the SEC only has one. And it's No. 1 ranked LSU. Do you think the rest of the SEC should just pack it in for the rest of the year?

And both of Boston College's losses came to in-conference opponents. The same can be said of 2-loss Clemson. So how does BC losing somehow reflect negatively on the ACC, when it was an ACC team that beat them?

11/11/2007 3:27:56 PM

louisville and west virginia would have been great adds.

11/11/2007 3:40:50 PM

^^ You're calling me a troll?

How does it reflect poorly on the ACC? Because BC was supposed to be the cream of the conference. Now they've lost two games in a row to shitty ACC schools.

Miami got beat 48-0 by a Virginia team that just lost to a shitty NC State team that almost lost to an even shittier UNC team at home. Virginia has won close games all year.

No one in the conference is any good.

The SEC is full of good teams that keep beating up on each other.

The ACC is bad from top to bottom and the SEC is good from top to bottom. How can you not observe the difference?

11/11/2007 4:20:05 PM

No one in any conference is any good. I already won this thread. Hawaii vs Kansas for national champion!!!

11/11/2007 4:25:34 PM

Quote :

"And both of Boston College's losses came to in-conference opponents. The same can be said of 2-loss Clemson."

Uh, yeah... of course. If they lost to their OOC opponents we would have MAJOR problems. Those two schools OOC teams have a combined 20 1-A wins... That is 7 teams total with 20 wins...

The ACC is pretty shitty. But so is the Big 10 and Big East this year..

Quote :

"The SEC is full of good teams that keep beating up on each other. "

To be fair, while I agree with that, we really don't know how'd they fare against the rest of the country because they never play anyone outside of the Southeast. The only bigtime program with a sac in that entire conference is Tennessee.. at least next year Auburn plays @ WVU

[Edited on November 11, 2007 at 5:22 PM. Reason : x]

11/11/2007 5:21:10 PM

^^^ when those "good" teams in the SEC actually prove themselves by beating solid non-con opponents then i'll believe what you say...

but for now, they keep scheduling wuss schedules...

Arkansas should be sent off packing to the Sun Belt, while Troy should be inducted into the SEC, since they got to play four SEC teams this year...

"We don't schedule any good non-con teams because the SEC is already a top schedule."
"Why is it a top schedule"
"Because we've got the best teams"
"How can you tell?"
"Duh, just look at our OOC record"
"But you only played 10 games as a conference against BCS schools, and only won five of them. Why didn't you play any harder opponents?"
*repeat*

I liked how this article put it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21695771/

Quote :

"Even with the addition of a 12th game to the schedule, the SEC is playing only 14 of its 48 non-conference games (29 percent) against other BCS schools. The Big 12 is the only major conference playing less (11 of 48, or 23 percent). By comparison, the Atlantic Coast Conference leads the way with 46 percent (22 of 48) against BCS opponents, followed by the Big East (15 of 40, 38 percent), the Pac-10 (11 of 30, 37 percent) and the Big Ten (13 of 44, 30 percent). No one comes close to playing as many out-of-conference games at home as the SEC, which has seven stadiums seating at least 80,000 and likes to use them as much as possible. The conference has 40 of 47 non-SEC games at home (85 percent), the other being a neutral-site game between Alabama and Florida State in Jacksonville, Fla. The remaining BCS conferences benefit far less from the home-field advantage: ACC (60 percent), Big East (65 percent), Big 12 (67 percent), Pac-10 (70 percent) and Big Ten (77 percent). Another stat you won't hear the SEC touting is its 5-5 record against BCS opponents, with four such games remaining. That trails the Big Ten (9-4), ACC (9-8) and Pac-10 (6-4), and is just ahead of the Big East (7-8) and Big 12 (5-6)."

Auburn actually gets credit in the article for playing TWO BCS schools, Kansas St. and South Florida. Of course, S.Fla beat them handily, and has since gone on to plummet from the rankings (of course, at this point Auburn just needs one more win to sneak into the top 25).

At this point, I think we should suspend all future non-conference activities of the SEC. Let them play 8 games a year, since they obviously don't care about the other four and don't think enough of themselves to schedule worthwhile opponents.

Quote :

"The ACC is bad from top to bottom and the SEC is good from top to bottom. How can you not observe the difference?"

sorry, the SEC didn't prove itself to be worth anything this year. LSU is good, and there are undoubtably good teams, but if the ACC had played the OOC schedule that they had we'd probably would have 11 teams nearly bowl eligible too. As it is we almost have a possibility of having 10 teams bowl eligible, but you still say the ACC is crap. Also, barely played anyone worthwhile OOC, while the ACC seems to have gone out of it's way to schedule BCS conference opponents. Tell me whose proven themselves more worthy this year.

Actually, maybe we should just do what the SEC does, schedule a bunch of non-BCS foes and go around claiming we're the best conference ever. Hey, if UNC had played a Miss St. schedule (Tulane, Gardner Webb, and UAB) they'd probably be bowl eligible now too.

[Edited on November 11, 2007 at 5:25 PM. Reason : /]

11/11/2007 5:21:21 PM

Yeah but if you just watch the games you can easily see what teams are good and what teams are not.

The ACC teams are not good.


LSU beat VT 93-0 earlier this year and VT is the best team we have.

11/11/2007 5:26:04 PM

Grats, they beat VT in the second game of the season, at this point i'm not sure it would happen that way. They'd probably still beat VT, but it wouldn't be that bad.

And of course, one game between two teams determines entire conferences.

Let me repeat it:

SEC vs. BCS Conference Teams = 5-5
ACC vs. BCS Conference Teams = 9-8

and it's not even that we have a better percentage, it's that we played so many more games.

11/11/2007 5:28:12 PM

Didn't Miss St play @ WVU? Or was that Ole Miss?

I read somewhere that Florida has played ONE OOC game outside of the Southeast since 1991... ONE! Tennessee does a good job of scheduling some big games and Auburn is branching out too in the future.

I also have noticed all the SEC fans talking down to the "lower conferences" and then when a NC State or a Wake Forest or a Louisville wants to schedule a home and home they won't do it... I understand that isn't the best economic choice but it would help them to actually prove what they beat their chest about...

To be clear, I do think the SEC is the best conference by far this year (well, with the P-10) but most of the fans of SEC programs are the worst kind of annoying...

[Edited on November 11, 2007 at 5:29 PM. Reason : x]

11/11/2007 5:28:51 PM

one more thing, i read a quote from a football coach somewhere (i wish i could remember who it was). He was talking about recruiting talented players for skill positions. He said "the best players don't care who else is on the team, they're competitors. It doesn't matter whose in front of them, they feel that if they prove they're the best they'll come out on top".

It holds for teams too, if a school takes pride in their program they're going to schedule games that will challenge those teams. They don't care if a tough team is on the schedule, because they know they're going to come out on top.

For all the "pride" that people seem to think that the SEC has in being the "best", they sure don't act like it. They schedule powder puffs and nobodies and they've gotten away with it for years. People claim they're the best by watching how they play against FCS teams and scream to high heaven when you point out that those performances come against lower caliber opponents.

The SEC, as a whole, has no guts to speak of. They simply don't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to leave their comfortable locker rooms and go play against teams with names that don't have hyphens or directions. It's an almost unforgivable lack of courage for a conference that seems to think it's the best thing that ever happened to football.

[Edited on November 11, 2007 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 11, 2007 at 5:35 PM. Reason : read it again, i re-edited]

11/11/2007 5:34:44 PM

this thread is retarded. it was decided on page 1...anything else is just trolling and stupidity. this thread needs to die...

11/11/2007 5:39:02 PM

I think everyone is overrated

11/12/2007 4:27:20 PM

^^ what did we decide? That the ACC sucks at football and we should just go back to being a basketball conference with 8 teams in it?

I'd be completely down with getting rid of them if it meant we could restore the round robin and ACC tournament format.

11/12/2007 7:40:07 PM

it was decided that this thread was retarded on page 1, much like you are

11/13/2007 3:30:06 AM

acc football is a golden god

11/13/2007 9:07:45 AM

If you are not in the acc then you are overrated. and all the teams except state are overrated

11/13/2007 8:04:42 PM

Quote :

"acc football is a golden god "

11/13/2007 8:05:49 PM

ACC football is a pyrite god.

11/13/2007 9:23:19 PM

More like a pyrex god.

11/13/2007 9:24:27 PM

wake beat vandy
gt hung tough w/ top 10 uga
clemson beat sc



hmmmmm

11/26/2007 12:04:05 AM