Upon Further Review

[SWC75]

I was listening to this local afternoon show this week and they were talking about the challenges of trying to compete in the ACC in football this coming season. They asserted that, while the ACC wasn't the SEC, it is a huge upgrade over the level of competition we have been facing in the Big East. Some people took exception to this and started sending them stats about rankings, post-season play and head-to-head competition but the hosts, (Chris McManus and Steve Infanti) dismissed this, asserting that schools like Virginia Tech, Clemson and Florida State have top ten teams every year and that the top 2-3 ACC teams have been national championship contenders year after year.

The ACC hasn't put a team in the national title game since Florida State after the 2000 season. In fact, Florida State is the only ACC team that's ever played in the BCS title game. Miami played in as a Big East team, as did Virginia Tech. West Virginia would have made it in 2007 if they hadn't been upset by Pitt in their own place at the end of the season. Cincinnati would have made it in 2009 if Texas hadn't gotten two chances to kick the game winning field goal vs. Nebraska.

Miami and Florida State used to be perennial national title contenders. Virginia Tech was for a brief time, (while still in the BE), but have faded a bit. Most of the schools in the ACC are like Syracuse: at times in their history they've been good, sometimes very good. They've also been bad at times, sometimes very bad. The chief difference between the Big East as it has been since 2004 and the ACC is that the ACC has better brand names. The Big East has been an entry-level BCS conference for ambitious programs with no history. The ACC programs, while they've had their ups and downs, have been competing at a BCS level for decades.

I decided to look at the writer's and coaches polls for 2004 onward and give points to the Big East and ACC teams on a 25 for 1st, 24 for second basis. If there was a difference in the polls, I awarded the points based on the higher of the two rankings.

2004
Big East: Boston College 21st in both polls, (5 points), Pittsburgh 25th in the writer's poll (1 point) Total: 6 points. (Louisville, which was #6/#7 was not yet in the conference)
ACC: Virginia Tech #10/#10 (16 points) Miami #11/#11 (15 points), Florida State #15/#14 (12 points) Total: 43 points.

2005
Big East: West Virginia #5/#6 (21 points), Louisville #19/#20 (7 points). Total: 28 points.
ACC: Virginia Tech #7/#7 (19 points), Miami #17/#18 (9 points), Boston College #18/#17 (9 points, Clemson #21/#21 (5 points), Florida State #23/#23 (3 points) Total: 45 points

2006
Big East: Louisville #6/#7 (20 points), West Virginia #10/#10 (16 points), Rutgers #12/#12 (14 points) Total: 50 points
ACC: Wake Forest #18/#17 (9 points), Virginia Tech #19/#18 (8 points) Boston College #20/#20 (6 points) Total: 23 points

2007
Big East: West Virginia #6/#6 (20 points), Cincinnati #17/#20 (9 points) Total: 29 points
ACC: Virginia Tech #9/#9 (17 points), Boston College #10/#11 (16 points), Clemson #21/#22 (5 points) Total: 38 points

2008
Big East: Cincinnati #17/#17 (9 points), West Virginia #23/NR (3 points) Total: 12 points
ACC: Virginia Tech #15/#14 (12 points) Florida State #21/#23 (5 points), Georgia Tech #22/#22 (4 points) Total: 21 points

2009
Big East: Cincinnati #8/#9 (18 points), Pittsburgh #15/#15 (11 points), West Virginia #25/#22 (4 points) Total: 33 points
ACC: Virginia Tech #10/#10 (16 points) Georgia Tech #13/#13 (13 points), Miami #19/#19 (7 points), Clemson #24/NR (2 points) Total: 38 points

2010
Big East: none
ACC: Virginia Tech #16/#15 (11 points), Florida State #17/#16 (10 points), Maryland #23/#24 (3 points), North Carolina State #25/#25 (1 point) Total: 25 points.

2011
Big East: West Virginia #17/#18 (9 points), Cincinnati #25/#21 (5 points) Total: 14 points
ACC: Virginia Tech #21/#17 (9 points), Clemson #22/#22 (4 points), Florida State #23/#23 (3 points) Total: 16 points

2012:
Big East: Louisville #13/#13 (13 points), Cincinnati NR/#22 (4 points) Total: 17 points
ACC: Florida State #10/#8 (18 points), Clemson #11/#9 (17 points) Total: 36 points

Total Points:

Big East
West Virginia 73
Cincinnati 45
Louisville 40
Rutgers 14
Pittsburgh 12
Boston College 5
Total: 189

ACC
Virginia Tech 108
Florida State 51
Clemson 33
Boston College 31
Miami 31
Georgia Tech 17
Wake Forest 9
Maryland 4
North Carolina State 1
Total: 285

The ACC has been better, but not hugely so. Nine schools have had ranked teams to 6 for the Big East. But West Virginia has been better than any ACC school except Virginia Tech. Louisville and Cincinnati give the Big East three of the five best teams. 5 of the 12 Top Ten teams have been Big East teams. The only top 5 team from either conference was West Virginia in the 2005 writer's poll. There hasn't been any perennial national championship contender in either conference.

Of course, we've had a hard time competing even in the Big East and have provided none of the above ranking points. it may make no difference which conference we are in. But I still think, despite the losses in the coaching staff and the roster, that we are on the way up and will have a chance to compete in this conference. I'm not scared of the ACC.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

Using your point system, the ACC had more total points in 8 of the 9 seasons. That can certainly be used to show that the ACC is a big step up. Personally, I think SU will be ok.

 

[Moontan]

Theses numbers should probably be adjusted for conference size. Divide the BE total by 8 and the ACC total by 12.
That yields scores of BE:23.625 and ACC:23.75. It looks like they're even to me.

It might be more interesting to compare those to the new ACC and the AAC as they'll be constituted in 2014. I'll bet that it won't be as even then.

 

[OrangePA]

The Big East had some very good teams and some very good coaches even in the past few years.

Guys like Kelly, D'Antonio, Jones, Rodriguez, Leavitt, Graham, Strong, Schiano, Edsall, and others are all obviously well-respected guys.

The ACC will be a challenge but the biggest challenge for us is - us!!

If we continue to step up financially we will compete quite well.

Our tradition and our brand remain strong - with infrastructure we will give FSU, Clemson and Va Tech a run for their money.

And I can't wait to see it happen!

 

[007]

The Big East had some very good teams and some very good coaches even in the past few years.

Guys like Kelly, D'Antonio, Jones, Rodriguez, Leavitt, Graham, Strong, Schiano, Edsall, and others are all obviously well-respected guys.

The ACC will be a challenge but the biggest challenge for us is - us!!

If we continue to step up financially we will compete quite well.

Our tradition and our brand remain strong - with infrastructure we will give FSU, Clemson and Va Tech a run for their money.

And I can't wait to see it happen!

Hope you are right this time, OPA

I am not sure how much sway our "tradition and brand" holds with current recruits. I think we are about to enter a defining time as a program. New staff, new recruiting philosophy, new conference, new facilities, and a lot more cash. We need to win now, we need to make a bowl in the next two years to carry the momentum.

The time is now. The window is narrow. The program is 35-62 since the end of the P era. That's a lot of "reality" to overcome to convince recruits that the program is back.

 

[Moontan]

The time is now. The window is narrow. The program is 35-62 since the end of the P era. That's a lot of "reality" to overcome to convince recruits that the program is back.

And 25-25 (4-8, 8-5, 5-7, 8-5) since the mistake hire, with 3 straight wins over WVU, a whipping of undefeated Louisville and no embarrassing losses during that stretch. That's during the time that recruits have been in high school.

From my viewpoint, the glass is (at least) half full.

 

[007]

And 25-25 (4-8, 8-5, 5-7, 8-5) since the mistake hire, with 3 straight wins over WVU, a whipping of undefeated Louisville and no embarrassing losses during that stretch. That's during the time that recruits have been in high school.

From my viewpoint, the glass is (at least) half full.

Agreed, which is why we need to win now to continue that momentum.

There is a difference between what we as fans "know" to be true, and national perception based on recent history. Look no further than the Vegas over/under for wins this season.

 

[SWC75]

Using your point system, the ACC had more total points in 8 of the 9 seasons. That can certainly be used to show that the ACC is a big step up. Personally, I think SU will be ok.

But look at the margins:

2004 6-43 (It would have been 26-43 if Louisville were in)
2005 28-45
2006 50-23
2007 29-38
2008 12-21
2009 33-39
2010 0-25
2011 14-16
2012 17-36.

Most years it's pretty close. By comparison the SEC last year had 96 points in this system. When I get a bit more time, I'll do a more comprehensive revive of the major conferences using this system from 2004-2012 to see how much of a step up this really is.

 

[SWC75]

Hope you are right this time, OPA

I am not sure how much sway our "tradition and brand" holds with current recruits. I think we are about to enter a defining time as a program. New staff, new recruiting philosophy, new conference, new facilities, and a lot more cash. We need to win now, we need to make a bowl in the next two years to carry the momentum.

The time is now. The window is narrow. The program is 35-62 since the end of the P era. That's a lot of "reality" to overcome to convince recruits that the program is back.

You don't get a second chance to make a first impression. If we dive to the bottom of the conference the next couple of years, we will be the new Duke. But my gut feeling is that that won't happen. I think we'll be more on a UNC-NC State type level.

 

[SWC75]

Theses numbers should probably be adjusted for conference size. Divide the BE total by 8 and the ACC total by 12.
That yields scores of BE:23.625 and ACC:23.75. It looks like they're even to me.

It might be more interesting to compare those to the new ACC and the AAC as they'll be constituted in 2014. I'll bet that it won't be as even then.

The point I made on the show was the perception is based on brand names, not recent accomplishments. It seems like more of a challenge to play brand name teams rather than wannabes but I have the feeling we will find that most of the ACC isn't any better than the Big East teams we were already playing. As OPA says, the big issue is us, not them.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

I think SU's OOC schedule has prepared SU to step into the ACC much more than say RU's OOC schedule has for their transition into the Big XXCMVIIL

 

[baggerbob]

The one factor you didn't factor in for your analysis, was we had the worst period in our history for 4 years with GROB, and we shouldn't have that again.

 

[The Viking]

If you worry about what could happen if you don't make the putt, the putt will never go in. The Orange has to play hard-nosed, SU brand football to be successful, and I think they're poised to do just that.

 

[dollarbill44]

I really do find it funny that pundits always cite FSU and Clemson as perennial top ten teams, when the reality is different. FSU national perception is still living off the Bowden years of the 80s and 90s. Clemson has been fairly mediocre up until last 2 years really.

 

[Moontan]

Clemson has been fairly mediocre up until last 2 years really.

They looked even less than mediocre just 14 games ago when they were pummeled by WfVU.

 

[HtownOrange]

I think SU's OOC schedule has prepared SU to step into the ACC much more than say RU's OOC schedule has for their transition into the Big XXCMVIIL

Not even close. Even being generous and giving RU credit for a significant victory over Arkansas (though they Arkansas stunk when they played), RU's SOS for OOC games is way below the level they need to prepare them for the B1G.

 

[Crusty]

"Statistics are for losers - the only statistic that counts is the final score." I know I heard that somewhere.

 

[rocklloyd]

"Statistics are for losers - the only statistic that counts is the final score." I know I heard that somewhere.

That's Hardnosed

 

[SU2NASA]

"Statistics are for losers - the only statistic that counts is the final score." I know I heard that somewhere.

You can use statistics to prove anything. 17% of all people know that.

 

[FAL]

You can use statistics to prove anything. 17% of all people know that.

But only 43% of the time. Or am I only 87% correct?

 

[SWC75]

Statistics, when properly used, give a conversation or debate and objective foundation. You need to know them before you draw conclusions. Often they provide not so much answers but the right questions and thus point you in the direction of the truth.

 

[Tcuse]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure

 

[Crusty]

Statistics, when properly used, give a conversation or debate and objective foundation. You need to know them before you draw conclusions. Often they provide not so much answers but the right questions and thus point you in the direction of the truth.

Sure, I agree. But when we use really small data sets it tells us very little especially when there are so many variables and subjective factors like poll rankings. Having said that, I always enjoy your posts because you always try to give a reasoned opinion.

 

[HtownOrange]

68% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[SU2NASA]

But only 43% of the time. Or am I only 87% correct?