It's taken close to 10 years, but it seems like the ACC is finally at a point where it can seriously contend with the SEC. The ACC officially has 4 legitimate teams that contend for a title every year: FSU, Clemson, Miami, and of course VT. This is certainly what the ACC envisioned when they first expanded the league to 12 teams. Adding Louisville next year will certainly help our image as well.
DISCLAIMER: Blog posts may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Does anyone know if Louisville will be in the Atlantic or Coastal? It'd make more sense to have them in the Atlantic...
I assume they just replace Maryland in the Atlantic.
They are replacing MD in the Atlantic. It was announced awhile ago.
And the first top 5 match-up of the season is from the ACC.
Not to mention Clemson beat Georgia, Miami beat Florida, and Tech played Alabama very close, regardless of what the score says.
Pump the brakes Mama Giraffe. Miami is 6-0, but there are still plenty of games to be played and last time I checked they haven't sniffed the title game since joining the league in 2004. I think we can all agree: Lets see how this season finishes out and how they perform over the next few years before we proclaim that the U is finally back.
If we transfer this theory to the SEC, you could argue that they have 6 teams competing on an annual basis for a title: Bama, UGA, USC-E, Florida, aTm, and LSU. There is the annual smattering of up-and-down teams like Auburn, Arkansas, and Mizzou (somewhat) that are more anomalies than anything else.
So when we have closer to 6 consistent teams and a MNC under our belt, then I would feel more confident. Nonetheless, the ACC is making noise again and is re-gaining some spotlight. And I agree with you that SOME teams are better positioned to contend. Let's just hope the FSU-Clemson game tomorrow night isn't embarassing...
...and a questionable 6-0 it is after how they slipped by a one win North Carolina team last night in the waning moments of the game and if not for a dropped ball in the end zone on the final play by UNC they would have lost.
As for the lists of who is competitive consistently for a title......are we talking conference or National? If we are talking National, than I would strike every ACC team off the list along with half the ACC teams listed until they can show they can even reach "the Game".
If we are talking Conference title, than in the ACC: Georgia Tech is more competitive than Miami with three appearances since 2005, hell even Boston College has more recent competitiveness than Miami since they actually reached the game in 2007 and 2008. I will leave you F$U and Clemson as they seem to be on the Atlantic Division merry go title game.
As for the SEC, only ones I think are a bit questionable are aTm and USC-E, the first for its infancy in the SEC and the second because its only made one appearance in their title game in the last ten years. Tennessee has been to more in that time frame. And lets be honest, other than a couple blips on the radar, that conference is now Alabama and every one else until someone can put Saban in his place. Bud did the best job of stopping that offense of anyone in memory, too bad we didn't have the offense or SPECIAL TEAMS to match.
Have to agree about USC-E, are they ever really a factor? If they ever got a QB then maybe, but I don't see them being near the conversation of Bama and LSU and (maybe, MAYBE Georgia).
I had this very conversation with my wife (USC-e fan) this morning.
It is interesting to see the different perceptions of the college football world:
Me: 'Man the ACC looks a lot stronger this year.'
Her: 'College football, as a whole, is weaker this year.'
Me: 'I think the SEC is down, but Oregon, tOSU, Texas Tech, UCLA, Clemson, FSU look strong.'
Her:'Maybe, but overall, football is not as good this year.'
Me:'Translation: If the SEC is down, then it's a bad year for college football.'
Her:'ACC sucks.....'
This a sign. SEC fans know that the ACC is on the rise, they are just afraid to admit it.
I just want to say that I love that this conversation is even happening in the world of college football. I'm also married to a USCe grad and while she is a pretty smart about football, her perception of the ACC is absolutely tied to Clemson. If they are bad, the ACC is crap. If they are decent, then the ACC still 'sucks' but only because she is nervous about the game in November....sigh. At least all of her family are Hokies.
Yeah, my grandfather is a USC-e grad and pretty much my whole mom's side of the family are big Gamecock fans. While they do look down at the ACC, they aren't as bad as most SEC fans.
I blame the middle of the country's bias giving overrated Ohio State teams entrance to the MNC as the SEC's whipping boy and starting this whole streak in the first place. I know it was only 2 times, but man that just adds to obnoxiousness of the streak.
I'll blame them on not allowing the streak to die by putting Notre Dame in there last year too.
Your first mistake was not marrying a Hokie. Your second was arguing with an SEC fan. I kid of course. My brother and sister-in-law are both UGA grads and so after last week's game, I texted them saying "how about those dawgs?" He came back with an excuse about how their starters were injured and asked how the Hokies were doing. I told him "on a 6 game winning streak and 3-0 in conference." He didn't respond.
It's kinda true about the injuries though... down their top 3 receivers and top 2 running backs. Imagine how the Hokies would be if we were missing Knowles, Byrn, and either Coles or Stanford as well as Edmunds and Coleman.
Being a new-ish follower of the Dawgs, though, I can tell you that lack of offensive weapons is not UGA's problem. The defense is porous.
Oh, I know injuries hurt them bad, but good teams will find a way to win.
I agree. Mizzou was right there to catch them slippin'. Even the local radio guys here said that Georgia would have a hard road to go last week.
Essentially thats where we were at in the Bama game. None of the WRs showed up and the only RB we had was Edmunds
But honestly, it was their pourous DEFENSE that lost them the game... I get it, without some of your key starters you can't sustain drives, ...but it's not like UGA's defense has been exactly impressive all year long either, even with all their starters on offense..
Sounds like he didn't learn the age old lesson of googling before smack talking.
You haven't seen my wife......
Any Tech fan who has a mullet in his avatar must have a very lovely wife at home.
My theory states that you must receive a turkey leg for this.
man, that's pretty funny.
I work with some LSU guys, and I will say that they aren't nearly as argumentative when I say that VT has arguably the best defense in the country.
I dare say they know it's better than theirs.
Fans of perennially relevant teams (LSU and Bama, particularly) know how to tell it like it is much of the time.
She is right until proven otherwise
There's still a lot of football left. There will be a minimum of 3 losses between the 4 schools you mention for the ACC since they play each other. (F$U-Miami in 2 weeks also.) Minimum. That doesn't allot for anything else happening. There is still opportunity to knock of some of the $EC schools (Clemson-USC, F$U-Florida, GiT-Uga) but there is also opportunity for the $EC to get a leg up on us at the end of the season. Making a lasting impression.
I agree with Philly, that it's nice to finally be relevant and in the conversation, but I wouldn't say the ACC is HERE. The Big12 has risen up and faded. The Pac12 has had some chances. The ACC will throw someone in the mix here and there. There's some losses left out there, and a ton of stuff can happen. Let's see where things stand at the beginning of December.
The difference between followers of the ACC and SEC fans:
ACC: Wow, I really thought Miami was a better team then they showed last night. I'm going to give them less credit based on their performance against a 1-4 football team.
SEC: You know, that Georgia win in OT over Tennessee was a really good win for Georgia. Even though Tennessee hasn't won a conference game in like 3 years, Tennessee would still beat 80% of the teams from other conferences.
Exactly. ESPN hypes the SEC like none other. Georgia looked like DAWG shit for a few games before they lost to Mizzu, but a game like last night will definitely hurt the ACC image.
The SEC is top heavy, and it looks like the ACC is getting top heavy which will help us in the long run. We have at least 3 teams that could make it to the title game this year, which is way different then the years past.
Preach. Oregon scored 38 points on UT.....before halftime, on the way to racking up 690 yards of offense. And oh by the way, held them to 14 points as well.
I tuned into that game in the second quarter with Miami down 14-13. They played like garbage (aka Morris is the Interceptor) on offense and Duke & Dorsett were hurt, but Crawford came in, played like RMFW, and they pulled the game out after throwing four interceptions and being unable to stop Eric Ebron.
Doubt Miami if you will, but that team, even with their backs against the wall, has gusto.
I don't know, compare these two hypothetical performances, and eventually gusto is going to match its meet:
Miami: "after throwing four interceptions and being unable to stop Eric Ebron"
Hokies: "after throwing ZERO interceptions and being ABLE to stop Eric Ebron"
The ACC is without a doubt the most competitive it has been since VT joined.
With that said, the only way the conference will get the respect it wants is by winning a national title. The average fan has short term memories of moral victories during the regular season.
2013 - Florida State or Clemson - we're looking at you.
Beating an SEC team in the National title would make it even sweeter.
False - The ACC is the most top-heavy, least competitive (all around), and most in contention for a national title since VT has joined. Big difference. The ACC has been all middle class - no great teams, but a bunch of pretty good ones. Now theres a couple really good ones, one or two pretty good ones, and a lot of garbage. That helps teams go undefeated and is great for the conference in the polls and the title hunt, but isn't really indicative of the conference's strength as a whole. This is what always drives me nuts about SEC teams. I don't really think there's any difference between the SEC and most other conferences, except maybe on or two teams at the top each year.
But if you've your two teams at the top are in the top 5, and a member has won a national title 6 or 7 years in a row, don't you think the hype is warranted? This is the first year '07 where there hasn't been an SEC team that hasn't wowed me. IMO that says something.
The SEC gets respect bc those teams win a larger percentage of OOC games than any other conference. They typically win well over half their bowl games.
2 teams does not a conference make. And lets be honest - you need a ton of breaks to get into the current national championship. Remember how Les Miles just seems to catch every break when he's in the hunt for the championship? Remember how that ball thrown over the holder's head bounced just so to the running punter? Remember how Bama needed all those breaks to beat a terrible Tennessee team for their first national championship? Or SEC teams needing multiple teams ahead of them to fall apart to get in (like in 2007?). Sometimes teams just get those breaks, and its seemed like recently, those teams have been SEC teams. I feel like that could happen just as easily to any other major power/conference. Maybe the move to a playoff will reduce the need to get those breaks, but with only 4 teams getting in, I sort of doubt it.
The SEC is not the monsterous juggernaut ESPN wants you to think it is. It's consistently produced 1-2 really good teams (generally Bama, LSU or UF), had a couple pretty good teams (South Carolina, UGA), and a fair amount of crap to keep the wins high in the other two groups (Mississippi schools, UT, Vandy, Kentucky, etc). That's the formula to win national titles (well that, and hype). Not top-to-bottom competitiveness.
Amen Brother!!
I remember seeing that lucky LSU team play a couple times in 2007. One of those times it got lucky by 41 points against the best team in the ACC.
Look, I cant stand the $ECspn hype as much as the next guy. But I also understand why it has gotten to this point. Their top teams show up when the moment counts. The SEC has made a lot its own luck.
With Clemson and Florida States start, maybe 2013 is the year that starts to change...
Doesn't matter. Point is they got the help they needed to get in. Every year, several teams are dominant. Only 2 get in. Those that do generally need some breaks to go their way. Had Tennessee not been wildly incompetent (remember the 13 man "Volunteer" defense jokes?), the streak would have ended years ago. Had WVU not lost to a frankly terrible Pitt team in '07, the streak never would've made it to 2. I'm not suggesting the SEC champs aren't good - I'm just suggesting that if say the Big 12 dominant programs in that period, or Pac 10 (at the time) gotten those breaks instead of the SEC teams, we'd be singing a very different tune. There's a lot of chance in college football.
Agree - Competitive in the sense that it has 3 or 4 teams that can go out and win games out of conference against other top teams. When's the last time that the ACC had 4 teams in late October that could potentially be eligible for a BCS at large? - never.
I don't really think there's any difference between the SEC and most other conferences, except maybe on or two teams at the top each year.
That's a huge difference! The perception of a conference is gauged by the teams it places in the top 10 on a regular basis (The teams you mention in the national title talk in November) - not by the quantity of its mid and bottom tier bowl teams.
The respect of the SEC is more so the 7 straight national titles and less the 8 teams it has in the top 25 this week.
The ACC really needs to get FSU or Clemson there this year to change its perception.
At the same time, the conversation about the SEC (at least prior-to and early streak) was always accompanied by how they beat each other up (because they're all so good), and that was how the survivor of the gauntlet made it to #1/#2 (or in a position to get lucky). And while the "garbage" of the SEC was rolling over in conference just like in ACC or B1G, they were still consistently beating their out of conference opponents.
...just playing devil's advocate.
playoff please.
On a related note, I ran across these articles today....2 parts of a 3 part series. Not sure when part 3 drops.
Part 1 is here: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/10/15/Are-The-ACC-s-Days-...
Part 2 is here: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/10/16/ACC-DAYS-NUMBERED-P...
Don't think I agree with the thrust of the articles, however, it's interesting that UNC has been thinking of exit strategies. VT isn't really mentioned much in either article. Of particular interest, though is the comment of one Brian in the comment section for article 1:
Interesting, huh?
Bonjour.
If it's on the intrawebs, it HAS to be true.
There are no exit strategies with the Media Rights Agreement that all current members, including Louisville agreed to earlier in the year. That agreement would mean that even if a team were to leave the ACC, they would not be able to take their media rights with them....without the media rights why would another conference want to bring in one of these teams? This deal runs until the 2026-27 season.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130422/acc-gran...
I'm not sure I really trust college football content coming from "breitbart.com" to be anything more than opinionated blather, less informed on the issue it is discussing than, say, the key play.
They are good at uncovering things and catching people in the act, but I agree football is out of their normal sphere.
This is a really moot point. The whole media rights agreement ensures that no team is leaving until 2024 or something like that. The major 5 conferences are stable for now, until the media rights are over.
nitpick... It's a moot point.
http://www.reference.com/motif/Health/mute-point-vs-moot-point
As I said, I think the article gets it wrong. The author seems to overlook the rights agreement, and he's not well versed on the ACC... That being said, apparently the heels were looking around for other dance partners, likely before the media rights agreement. One wonders if the comment about the SEC offering us before Miizzou is true. Would it be conceivable that we turned the SEC down?
Conceivable they offered us, even before Mizzu, yes. Depends on what they were offering. If it was a sliding scale in the first few years for distribution, I would say we were right to turn it down. Could have been a different offer than they offered Mizzu, seeing that we turned it down, they "sweetened" the deal for them. Who knows. With a straight "close you tab, then come sit with us" deal, it's hard to tell where things would shake out completely.
And, I do believe UNC at least sniffed around. So did Texas. Why not test the waters? At the time when things were changing, they were moving fast and furious. And there was no telling where things would end up. In the end, most of the talks fizzled, or the regents get cold feet in upsetting the apple cart, and we are where we are in whole. I don't see a whole lot changing going forward without some sort of major reform/overhaul of the entire set up of conferences/player pay, but that's a completely different animal that will take some time to play out.
I believe it. And while I would love to jump on the current SEC bandwagon, declining was the long term correct decision.
I'd say it's highly likely that we turned down an offer to go to the SEC - by all accounts, our reasons to jump from the Big East to the ACC included things like reduced travel expenses and a desire to improve our athletic programs across the board. Sports like men's & women's soccer, wrestling & even basketball to an extent (where we've seen degrees of success in each since joining the conference) are mostly afterthoughts in SEC country. I'd also say that the ACC is a much better fit for us across the board not only in athletics, but academics as well. To my knowledge, the research opportunities that are available in the ACC far outweigh those presented as a member of the SEC. I'm not sure of the specifics, but I'm sure someone else can chime in on that part.
If you use USNews as a metric (mainly because it's easy to access), then on average, our academics outperform theirs.
Lots of ACC schools, even the non-football ones, need to step up their tailgating scenes. Every SEC school throws it down on game day. Some ACC schools (you know which ones) barely acknowledge football culture.
If the football product continues to improve, so will the tailgating.
Agreed, but we appear to be like the PAC12 in that regard. At least our southern schools can hold it down.
it's all about out of conference games .. big ones ... miami beat florida, clemson beat georgia. we played alabama much closer than the score indicates (and it shows by the love that espn is starting to give us).
if fsu beats florida and clemson can handle south carolina this season .. and an acc team getting to the mnc game, acc is back. hate to admit, but i'm glad the U came back the other night and won. having more zero and one loss teams helps our perception even more.
my preferred sequence of events...
..even though #DaboIsADouche -- clemson beats fsu in a close one
..miami beats fsu
..we beat miami
..we beat clemson in the acccg
..that kind of SoS, with our only loss coming to bama ... i know i dream -- but stranger shit has happened.
let's worry about curb-stomping duke first, eh?