Has ACC football finally earned more respect? | Syracusefan.com

Has ACC football finally earned more respect?

To point out that teams "...not named Florida State or Clemson went a dismal 3 - 6 in bowl games..." is just dumb. I agree with him that measuring the number of bowl wins is not a very accurate way to measure conference strength. But you can't just drop out the best two teams, and say "there...see?" Having 11 bowl teams with a 5 - 6 record is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.
 
To point out that teams "...not named Florida State or Clemson went a dismal 3 - 6 in bowl games..." is just dumb. I agree with him that measuring the number of bowl wins is not a very accurate way to measure conference strength. But you can't just drop out the best two teams, and say "there...see?" Having 11 bowl teams with a 5 - 6 record is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.
Completely discounting having 11 teams in bowls because of the size of the conference is BS too. Last time I checked, the ACC isn't the only 14 team conference. It may not mean everything, but it's not meaningless either.
 
To point out that teams "...not named Florida State or Clemson went a dismal 3 - 6 in bowl games..." is just dumb. I agree with him that measuring the number of bowl wins is not a very accurate way to measure conference strength. But you can't just drop out the best two teams, and say "there...see?" Having 11 bowl teams with a 5 - 6 record is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.
5-6, with 2 BCS wins, one being the National Championship. Yea, I think most conferences would be overjoyed with that.
 
To point out that teams "...not named Florida State or Clemson went a dismal 3 - 6 in bowl games..." is just dumb. I agree with him that measuring the number of bowl wins is not a very accurate way to measure conference strength. But you can't just drop out the best two teams, and say "there...see?" Having 11 bowl teams with a 5 - 6 record is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

My first thought exactly. Everything else seemed fair, but that was patently ridiculous. You don't take out the best two teams, who won the biggest games, and THEN judge.

Would have been more reasonable to just say "Even with the national champion and a 2-0 record in BCS games, the ACC still finished with a losing bowl record." That's fair enough.

His approach was ludicrous.
 
To point out that teams "...not named Florida State or Clemson went a dismal 3 - 6 in bowl games..." is just dumb. I agree with him that measuring the number of bowl wins is not a very accurate way to measure conference strength. But you can't just drop out the best two teams, and say "there...see?" Having 11 bowl teams with a 5 - 6 record is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

A better comment to make would be that the ACC teams won 5 bowl games in 2013. That puts the ACC third behind the SEC at 7 and the PAC 12 at 6. All other conferences won fewer bowl games than the ACC.
 
"If you take away 7 of the SEC bowl victories, the conference bowl record this season is an unimpressive 0-3." Crap conference.

That about sums up my objective and thorough professional analysis...
 
The SEC went 0-2 in the important BCS games, while the ACC went 2-0. We should get credit for Louisville, and the Big 10 should get credit for Maryland, and Rutgers.
 

Similar threads

Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
5
Views
676
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
6
Views
501
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
6
Views
649
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
8
Views
629

Forum statistics

Threads
167,916
Messages
4,736,846
Members
5,931
Latest member
CuseEagle8

Online statistics

Members online
257
Guests online
1,830
Total visitors
2,087


Top Bottom