They are top 25 teams by default. Someone in the ACC has to go 9-3 or 8-4 so they get ranked. But none of them ever produce a particularly dominant team, and they tend to fade away the next year. The only real exception is sort of Georgia Tech, which has been able to be fairly good for a couple of years in a row. See above for the Top 10 finishes. Add to that, in BCS games, they are 1-9 in the last decade as well - with the one win (and several losses) coming against the Big East. (On a side note, the two Miami top ten finishes were when they were still in the Big East)
Agreed - it also makes for a really boring football season filled with really boring games. In the old Big12, we almost always played at least 1 top 10 team at home in a season, and generally about 3 overall. In the new Big 12 (minus A&M), we might play 1 at home every couple of years if OSU can hold on and another in OU in Dallas every year. In the ACC, it will be rare to ever play a top 10 team at home based on past history. At various times over the last decade, Nebraska, Tech, OSU, Missouri and Kansas all were in the top 5 late into the season. Before that, K-State was consistently a top 10 team as well. They weren't consistently as good as OU/TX, but they did provide real competition and some great games.
Since ESPN controls these rights does that mean they can schedule any ACC conference game on the LHN? Major, I agree with your points about the football schedule looking weak compared to the Pac 12 or Big 10. But wouldn't a move there make more sense when you consider all of the other sports, especially basketball? Imagine a conference with Duke, UNC, Texas and possibly Kansas and Baylor. Wouldn't that really help the UT basketball program? I think Ut cares about money #1, academics #2 and being competitive in all sports #3. Does the ACC get an automatic BCS game and would UT be in contention every year with an ACC schedule plus an OOC game like OU?
I can't even imagine how pumped I'd be about college hoops watching Kansas, UT and Baylor play against Duke, UNC, Wake, Maryland, etc. That would be hands down the best conference in the nation from year to year.
I guess you can say it's by default, but it's a deserving default. The conference's overall power rating is quite high (3-4-5), definitely higher than the big 10, though slightly lower than the Pac 10, but on average about the same as the current Big 12, and the ACC, depending on the measure, is usually #2 or #3 so in terms of NFL draft picks.
I'll gladly trade a boring regular season for wins and the chance to compete for titles. I completely hear what you are saying, but for some, winning isn't boring. For example, the Texans/Colts game was boring football but it wasn't boring because we kicked their butts and enjoyed winning/blowing them out. I think the SEC is the only conference where around half of your teams games aren't the boring kind (as far as competition goes).
playing maryland, nc state, wake, ga tech, boston college is no different than playing wsu, arizona, cal, osu, washington. i'm assuming they'll keep the ou game regardless of conference affiliation. so you're looking at whether usc is better than florida state or if oregon is better than vatech. and that's only looking at football. even if you give a slight edge to pac-10 (and mostly that is based on scenery, not the program itself), it's not nearly enough to make up the difference between the two conferences in basketball. i agree, that's why i hope big xii stays together.
I think this is all just a lot of lightning and thunder, but I don't think we're going to get any rain.
Agreed - except that those ACC schools are never top tier contenders. Random Pac10 schools tend to pop up here and there - in your list, Cal and Washington were top 10 schools at various points over the last decade. Here's the argument that the ACC sucks over the last decade: * Fewest top 10 finishes of any major conference; and probably fewer than the MWC/WAC as well. Less than a third of any of the big 4 conference (or less than half, if you include Miami's Big East finishes). I believe they have even fewer than the nonviable Big12-2-1-2 (Big 7, taking out TX/OU). * No top-tier depth - only VaTech has been in the top 10 in the last decade, vs anywhere between 3-6 schools in all the other major conferences. * Worst BCS game performance of any conference, including MWC and WAC, both in total wins and winning %. No appearances in the championship game. No teams even finishing in the top 5. So if I'm overrating the other conferences, what is the argument that the ACC is remotely comparable to the Big10 or Pac10? Icehouse - I'm speaking entirely from a football perspective. I do agree that it makes for great basketball. You could get that in the Big10 too, but the Pac10 has been pretty mediocre in that area for a while now. I don't know if it would help the basketball program though - I don't really have a sense of whether being 4th or 5th in a great bball conference is better for recruiting than being 2nd in a fairly good one. It does seem to work for the Big East though.
I disagree - you can easily see this with ticket prices. Tickets for UT vs Rice, Kansas, and K-State are going for about half of face value on StubHub. Tickets for Oklahoma State are going for around face value. Tickets for games against ranked teams always go for more, whether your own team is ranked or not. Why? Because fans value seeing games against good teams more than ones against crappy teams. The market clearly shows where people get their most entertainment value. In the Texans example, people will pay a lot more for a game against a healthy Colts team than a game against an 0-16 opponent, even though the chance for a loss is much, much higher.
This an absolute joke. Tech has won almost as many bowl games as Baylor has won regular season BIG 12 Conference games. Baylor's Big 12 record is in the neighborhood of 18-125. After Leach left, they replaced him with Tommy Tuberville who was the 2004 Coach of the Year winning the SEC Championship.
How can you say it's not "remotely comparable"? It's definitely comparable to the Big 10, which hasn't had a higher overall ranking since 2005. The MWC isn't remotely comparable. .
This is about what I expected. The ACC has been roughly the same quality as the Big 12 and PAC 10, a shade ahead of the Big 10 and Big East.
If anyone is interested in catching some Baylor football this weekend, they have have tickets for sale on stub hub right now- $3 for the 50 yard line. http://www.stubhub.com/baylor-football-tickets/baylor-vs-stephen-f-austin-state-9-17-2011-1040617/ Spoiler
He said overall athletic department, and by that measure, he's right. Baylor's doormat nature in football is actually an asset for them in some aspects. Sometimes you get invited to the party so other people can pick on you. Not that Baylor doesn't have other redeeming qualities, but that's just how it goes sometimes. Obviously, it would be a liability if they were trying to get into a BCS conference on their own measure, but UT could bouy any conference's football status more than enough to allow Baylor in the boat. What is a joke is UT looking out for Baylor's best interest in *any* scenario over a state institution. Does Ken Starr have naked pictures of Deloss Dodds?
But in all of those instances the stadium is full. Interest is still there. I agree that exciting and competitive games are better, but playing important bowl games or being in NC contention is best. Look at it this way. In 2005 we basically played Ohio State, OU and Tech. Every other game would fit under your "boring" criteria (arguably even the Tech game, but I listed them since they finished #10). I don't know too many Longhorns that think 2005 was boring, and I think most were happy to watch us blow people out and be in BCS Bowl contention at the end of the year. I could make the same arguments for 2004 and 2009. I think any other conference but the SEC will result in 2-3 of these good games and the rest will be the "boring" kind.
That may be happening...I'm not sure. Baylor has played the heavy in this "slow-down" that's benefitted Texas. I've heard it said before, "BU is doing UT's dirty work." But beyond that, I think it may be more about ACC preference and just how far west they're willing to extend. Also academic stuff.
You lost me when you say Baylor's football program, football being the #1 revenue generating sport, is a dooormat, yet Baylor has a superior Atheletic Department to Tech.
according to rankings from '08 (when baylor was the supreme doormat), they had more revenues from college football than texas tech.
I'm sure one of our resident Baylor Bears could give us a pretty impressive list of accomplishments by Baylor Athletics since the formation of the Big 12. Once again, the football money/competitiveness/prestige isn't the key factor here for this tag-along scenario. That's the whole point, UT is bringing the beef, Baylor is essentially bringing the condiments. I'm not sure how Tech compares, but the strength of their athletic department (football), is not what is going to get them a seat on this particular life-boat.
