The great thing about the ACC's perception challenge

[Scooch]

... is that by and large it is totally under it's own control.

If we assume that the league doesn't suffer any defections, then what we're left with is a conference that is a clear (and deserved) #5 on the major conference pecking order. But that perception can change relatively quickly with improved on-field performance. Not every league can say that. The Big East is always going to be perceived as an also-ran, even if, say a Boise State, goes 12-0. It's a structural flaw in the conference.

I mean if the ACC was in it's looming 14 team configuration in the 1990s it would have been viewed as one of the pre-eminent football conferences in the nation, given the tremendous success of FSU and Miami, along with the top-25 caliber quality depth of programs like Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Teach, Virginia, etc.

The ACC hasn't fared too well the past decade, but I don't think that there is anything institutional about that. There's no endemic reason why FSU and Miami can't become top 10 programs again, or why another 4-6 programs can't be solid top 25 finishers on an annual basis. Schools in this conference just have to do it.

And if they don't, what can you do?

 

[Chip]

Yep, you can pretty much chalk up Miami and Florida State's issues to coaching decisions. It looks like Miami has the coaching part figured out, but now must get through the probation mess. I still think with Golden, they're positioned to get back where they're used to being. FSU, not sure yet on Jimbo. They certainly pay him like he's the answer, but that doesn't make him the answer. That just leaves them with a deficit. Will Clemson keep moving forward with Dabo? Orange Bowl embarassment notwithstanding, Clemson returned themselves to national recognition last year. GT has been doing the same under Paul Johnson. Looks like UVA hired a keeper. VT is steady, would have really helped the league if they could have pulled out that Sugar Bowl last year.

The ACC has so much going for it. It's just hard to believe that a noisy, yet inaccurate BOT member, and a bowl game that most years won't involve the champions of the conferences who aliged, could bring down this league. As long as the Presidents stay rational, and do not get caught up in the hype of the bloodthirsty, and surprisingly naive, college football media, the ACC will look back at these recent years as a storm that they weathered.

 

[Scooch]

Perception is such a fickle thing. Look at the Pac-12. It's a conference that everyone just grants "big boy" status to, but why?

USC has been a national power for a decade, and Oregon has been as good as anyone for just as long so it certainly has a premium top. But the rest of that conference generally ranges from better-than-mediocre to god-awful. Washington, Cal, UCLA, Arizona State? It's 7-6 football at it's finest, really no different than the similar quality programs in Wake, NC State, Virginia, etc. Functionally #3 downward in both leagues are similar, but the ACC hasn't had a premium top, so the perception is bad.

 

[texascpa]

Perception is such a fickle thing. Look at the Pac-12. It's a conference that everyone just grants "big boy" status to, but why?

USC has been a national power for a decade, and Oregon has been as good as anyone for just as long so it certainly has a premium top. But the rest of that conference generally ranges from better-than-mediocre to god-awful. Washington, Cal, UCLA, Arizona State? It's 7-6 football at it's finest, really no different than the similar quality programs in Wake, NC State, Virginia, etc. Functionally #3 downward in both leagues are similar, but the ACC hasn't had a premium top, so the perception is bad.

I was going to say the same thing. Remove USC and Oregon (who really has only been good for the last 5 years or so) and you have a league on par with the current BE.

 

[Scooch]

I was going to say the same thing. Remove USC and Oregon (who really has only been good for the last 5 years or so) and you have a league on par with the current BE.

It just reinforces how absolutely critical it is to have a standard-bearer. The ACC had that in the 90s with FSU, and they thought they added another in Miami in 2003. Hasn't worked out so far.

But FSU seems to be landing as a pre-season #7 in a lot of polls. If they have a great season and end up in national title contention, and the middle of the league performs well (say Clemson, VaTech, GaTech and someone else all fall into the #8-#25 range) then what's the problem exactly?

 

[billsin01]

Perception is such a fickle thing.

I think the tough thing is that it is and it isn't. It's hard to figure. The only concern I have with the ACC is does it become the new Big East for all intents and purposes? Certainly it's on better footing than the BE, but it's still perceived to be 5th out of 5 and that always leaves it vulnerable -- not only to years when FSU/Miami/VT are a little down but to years when one of the non-traditional powers has a huge year. I mean, if BC goes out and wins all it's games next year, what percentage of the media would pick them to beat a 3-loss USC team or a 3-loss Florida?

 

[baggerbob]

I went thru the Big East years AP poll 1991-2003, taking new ACC with Pitt and Syr,and new SEC with Missouri, Texas A&M. Top 10 ACC 24,SEC 31, Top 25 ACC 70, SEC 73,Top 5 ACC 17,SEC 15, National Champion ACC 4, SEC 3. All that the ACC needs is to get back to what they were during that 13 year period.

 

[Scooch]

I went thru the Big East years AP poll 1991-2003, taking new ACC with Pitt and Syr,and new SEC with Missouri, Texas A&M. Top 10 ACC 24,SEC 31, Top 25 ACC 70, SEC 73,Top 5 ACC 17,SEC 15, National Champion ACC 4, SEC 3. All that the ACC needs is to get back to what they were during that 13 year period.

Interesting, thanks!

And I get why FSU would be pissed that Florida might be making $5-7 million more a year than them. But that differential is not keeping FSU from winning national titles. At all.

 

[Chip]

It just reinforces how absolutely critical it is to have a standard-bearer. The ACC had that in the 90s with FSU, and they thought they added another in Miami in 2003. Hasn't worked out so far.

But FSU seems to be landing as a pre-season #7 in a lot of polls. If they have a great season and end up in national title contention, and the middle of the league performs well (say Clemson, VaTech, GaTech and someone else all fall into the #8-#25 range) then what's the problem exactly?

Right. A conference is considered as strong as its strongest team today, although good to have at least 2 that are considered strong. Some may ask why that didn't work out for the original Big East, I would say that you also can't be a smaller 8 team league with 25% of your league as bottom feeding programs who most years were worse than anything the MAC had to offer.

FSU's problem right now is that people said the same thing last year (possibly the year before too, can't remember). They were preseason Top 10, everyone was saying, FSU is back. But FSU still couldn't deliver. VT isn't proving strong enough to carry the league's reputation on its back.

The league's other perception problem is that BCS record. It's only win in recent history is against the Big East. Clemson giving up an Orange Bowl record of 100 points as the ACC champion certainly didn't help. The last 2 BCS games, the ACC champ was beaten easily, Clemson as mentioned, and Stanford pulling away from VT the year before.

All cyclical stuff, and could unfortunately end up being bad timing, but hopefully all teams stay the course as this league has all the potential to get where it wants to be.

 

[billsin01]

Right. A conference is considered as strong as its strongest team today, although good to have at least 2 that are considered strong. Some may ask why that didn't work out for the original Big East, I would say that you also can't be a smaller 8 team league with 25% of your league as bottom feeding programs who most years were worse than anything the MAC had to offer.

I agree with this but I'd suggest that the bigger issue the BE had was that it wasn't quite as strong at the top and didn't therefore get credit for actually having some pretty credible depth as a smaller conference. I mean even in the "glory days" you had really talented Cuse teams that still found a way to lose at least 3 games/year; Va Tech emerging but not really a power pre-Vick, and Miami struggling with probation.

Post-raid it was still a decent conference but the issue then was that it wasn't a team or two that was just really good every year (or almost every year). So WVU had a run, L'ville had a window, Cincy had two really nice years with BK -- but none were able to sustain it. RichRod/Petrino/BK hanging around may have made a difference in time for that conference.

But perception to me is often connected to people caring about a program. Even when the Cuse was great in the late 90s, my college buddies from NY, NJ and MD basically were like, "Oh, they're good. That's cool for you, I guess." But they never really cared. Same goes for Cincy/Louisville (perhaps, though to a lesser degree and they have some potential), Pitt, UConn, BC, USF ... Really the only team with a rabid, loyal following was WVU.

That issue, unfortunately, still exists in the ACC where the schools have bigger followings but little in the way of sustained on-field success.

 

[kingottoiii]

Interesting, thanks!

And I get why FSU would be pissed that Florida might be making $5-7 million more a year than them. But that differential is not keeping FSU from winning national titles. At all.

Also what happens to Florida? Zook went 8-5, 8-5, 7-4 and Muschamp went 7-6. If they aren't winning 9+ games a year FSU and Miami will have an easier time getting kids.

 

[omniorange]

... is that by and large it is totally under it's own control.

If we assume that the league doesn't suffer any defections, then what we're left with is a conference that is a clear (and deserved) #5 on the major conference pecking order. But that perception can change relatively quickly with improved on-field performance. Not every league can say that. The Big East is always going to be perceived as an also-ran, even if, say a Boise State, goes 12-0. It's a structural flaw in the conference.

I mean if the ACC was in it's looming 14 team configuration in the 1990s it would have been viewed as one of the pre-eminent football conferences in the nation, given the tremendous success of FSU and Miami, along with the top-25 caliber quality depth of programs like Syracuse, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Teach, Virginia, etc.

The ACC hasn't fared too well the past decade, but I don't think that there is anything institutional about that. There's no endemic reason why FSU and Miami can't become top 10 programs again, or why another 4-6 programs can't be solid top 25 finishers on an annual basis. Schools in this conference just have to do it.

And if they don't, what can you do?

Great post Scooch.

One thing the Clemson AD said in his interview, which of course may be more a misunderstanding, was that the 5 and 10 year "look-ins" are about potential performance increases. "The purpose of that - in talking with ESPN people and our people in the same room - is to look in 5 years to see where are we - competitively, what's our performance and does it merit a significant increase in the rights fee."

Hope FSU holds the line. Not sure Clemson will, if invited without FSU.

Cheers,
Neil