ACC Football: what needs fixing?

I read this somewhere recently and it still rings true......

NOBODY CARES.
WORK HARDER!!

(12-11-2019 06:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 09:33 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 06:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 03:53 PM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You have to forgive them. Right behind football being FSU and Clemson's fault everything I post is always wrong is the second most repeated lie here.

I was right about the media payout.

And the bowl selections.

And the fact that it didn't matter what FSU and Clemson did when the rest of the conference sucks the perception was going to be the same.

And how I'm going to be proven right when the ACCN payoff is going to be a whole lot smaller than what the SECN is bringing in.



Now let's see what the resident "experts" have been wrong about:

1. The "look-in" on the media contract being financially beneficial for the ACC. (It wasn't)

2. The kid-sister bowl to the Citrus being bumped up in pay and status because of the ACC #2 slot. (It didn't)

3. Because the ACC controlled the rights to the Orange Bowl the payout being beneficial to the ACC. (We didn't)

4. Football on an upswing (It's not)


But remember, I'M the one who is wrong.

You realize that this isnt geometry? Being right about one thing doesnt mean you are right about everything else.

You made an ass of yourself with the comment me and Indy were ACTUALLY responding too.

Now carry on with your weird combo of superiority mixed with persecution complex. This board just wouldnt be the same without it

So Clemson was "wandering in the desert"......what do you call what Louisville, UNC, and the rest of the ACC not named FSU and Virginia Tech have been doing?

The point remains that outside of possibly Virginia Tech, although that could be called into question recently, the rest of the conference is expecting Clemson and FSU to carry the load and refuses to step up when either is down. FSU has been down for two years now.....who has stepped up to take their place? Absolutely nobody. As usual.

The 2020 recruiting rankings show that the trend is likely to continue. Out of the top 50 players in this class there's nine players committed to ACC schools. Clemson has six of them. Out of the top 25 recruiters in the country three recruiters with ACC ties are listed. They are all three Clemson coaches (Todd Bates, Robbie Caldwell and Jeff Scott) Of the seven five star recruits committed to ACC schools six are going to Clemson. Clemson has as many or more five stars committed than ten other ACC programs have four stars. GT and UNC are in the top 25 in rankings but both are there based upon primarily sheer numbers as their average player score is a strong deviation from the scores of programs above and below them in the rankings. What gives you hope that things are going to change in the near future?

How you keep trying to shift away from what I was actually talking about is amazing.

Louisville has been down for two years and it coincided with FSU being down also. Before that Louisville was consistently ranked and actually adding to the ACC profile.

You seem hellbent on lumping us in with the Wakes, BC's and UNC's of the world for whatever reason. And then you even concede that Virginia Tech isnt one of the parasites, which is a team that has an almost identical record in both conference and overall record than since joining the league 5 years ago, even with Louisville's abortion season last year.

Louisville has finished more seasons in the ACC unranked than they have been ranked. Nobody cares about a ranking in week 4, it's the end of the season ranking that matters and thus far Louisville has not delivered more than they have delivered.

And I'm the one shifting away when other posters are trying to bring up basketball in a football discussion, or want to talk about stuff from years ago in a discussion about what needs to be fixed RIGHT NOW?

Continue your persecution complex, its adorable.

(12-12-2019 01:06 PM)HRFlossY Wrote:  ACC Football: what needs fixing?

I read this somewhere recently and it still rings true......

NOBODY CARES.
WORK HARDER!!

(12-12-2019 10:11 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The thing is, the ACC has done really bad against P5 competition, partially because of the lopsided matchups, but at least this way the ACC is guaranteed to go .500 against itself.

So... stop the lopsided matchups. Of course Alabama wants to play you in Atlanta, because 9 times out of 10 they'll WIN. Work a little harder to schedule Ole Miss or Missouri or Arkansas instead.

Well then....ask not what your conference can do for your team, ask what your team can do for your conference.

(12-12-2019 10:11 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 10:01 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I was thinking with the 9th conference game there would be less challenging OOC games, not get rid of the games vs the FCS and G4s. So no more Bama vs Duke type of games. We have SEC rivalry games and ND, plus an occasionally good G4.

So we eliminate high profile games, College Gameday type games like Clemson has coming up against UGA, LSU, OU, etc for ACC Network games against Duke, Pitt, and UVA?

There's far less positives about a 9 conference game schedule than there is negatives.

Yes. You could also think high profile neutral site games vs UNC, VT and Miami. It’s not all just about Clemson and what they want though. I would also think those ACC high profile games would be well attended and watched by Clemson’s opponents as well.

You get a neutral site game to pay far more than the just shy of $9 million Clemson averages for a home game and we'll discuss it. As it stands there aren't any neutral site games that come close to a payday like that. The Chick-fil-a Kickoff averages around $5.4 million per team. It would have to at least double, and there's absolutely no way in hell anybody is going to pay that for an ACC conference game.

Quote:The thing is, the ACC has done really bad against P5 competition, partially because of the lopsided matchups, but at least this way the ACC is guaranteed to go .500 against itself.

So don't make lopsided matchups. Far, far easier than screwing over your bell-cow programs with nine conference games and stupid ass neutral site games.

The Division Champions and Playoff schools are given an incentive as their travel is paid for. It's not huge. IIRC it amounts to about $1.2 or did last year for Clemson.

Paying cash money to win a title is not going to fly with academics. Paying cash money to the school for travel or some other education relative purpose flies. Of course it's all fungible but it allows academics to have their cake and eat it as well.

The fact of the matter is that Kap, via Clemson, has earned to right to play the horse's ass. Clemson put it's money where its mouth was and delivered on the football field. Clemson has never claimed to be "holier than thou" which is the core reason that Carolina's cheating was such an issue. People associated with Carolina in various capacities have cast aspersions on Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, and NC State all the while cheating like hell since the 1930's and turning a blind eye to certain student athletes at Duke.

Kap is an *******, but he's not a hypocrite.

The key problem in ACC football is that the best two PROGRAMS are in the same division. The de-insentivizes others to compete in structural way that you don't overcome by a rah rah speech.

Three divisions of 5 with the best two winners hosting the worst division winner and the wild card creates the most incentives.
Non divisional play with 3 permanent rivals creates the second most incentives.
Altering the current divisions creates a few incentives for some but may create disincentives for others


i can assure you that NC State fans miss playing Penn State and others that we played OOC in the 70's and 80's and 90's, but NC State does not have the depth of talent to play Clemson, Florida State, and Miami/VT and Alabama/Penn State in a season. While NC State might have the talent to play with those teams in a single game, the depth of talent is not there to play with those teams in that game, and be ready for the next week.

Since the ACC office controls our schedule we can't do what was done by FSU or others in the past and sandwich a great school around two much easier games. We have to take what is given and only those with the most talent have the ability to fully navigate that to a 10, 11, or 12 win season. For NC State to have a CHANCE to break into the level that can actually hope to compete at the top would take over an $100,000,000 investment.

What happens to that investment if Carolina and Duke decide to match it?

NC State does not even control its own parking lots as they were given to the "Centennial Authority" to build a hockey arena for the Carolina Hurricanes. To do anything substantial NC State needs the approval of the City of Raleigh, County of Wake, State of NC, and UNC Board of Governors. You will not find a majority of NC State graduates on any of those boards.


The most effective thing the ACC could do to help ACC football is to trade NC State and WF for Vandy and MIzzou. Or trade WF and NC State for MD and NW.

It's not going to happen.

Baring that maybe the ACC needs to trade Clemson and WF for Auburn and Vandy.

Not that it's going to happen

(12-12-2019 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Went EXTREMELY Old School on me did you Mark......



I was thinking more Lamar Jackson'esqe

(12-13-2019 12:00 PM)HRFlossY Wrote:  

(12-12-2019 05:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Went EXTREMELY Old School on me did you Mark......



I was thinking more Lamar Jackson'esqe

I think that’s pre-old school actually.