Recent Comments
Unfortunately from a national perspective, while they might discuss how strong London's recruiting classes are, when you are consistently a three or four win team I don't think the facade holds up. Now if they could find a way to win eight to nine games a year regularly than maybe.
Essentially thats where we were at in the Bama game. None of the WRs showed up and the only RB we had was Edmunds
Oh, I know injuries hurt them bad, but good teams will find a way to win.
I didn't read most of the comments on here, so sorry if I repeat but:
1) It's too early for this kind of speculation.
2) Clemson or FSU would get in over Ohio State, Louisville, or Baylor, but not above an undefeated SEC (if it's Alabama) or PAC12 team (if it's Oregon). Missouri and UCLA are debatable, but if those two and Clemson are all undefeated, Clemson will probably be ranked #1 after championship weekend.
That's all that can be said for now. We're on the outskirts of contender status. It is possible. But let's at least wait until after the Maryland game before we start worrying about it.
He is a liability in the blocking department and still hasn't learned to get out of the backfield in the short passing game. Makes it difficult to justify putting him in over the other backs that can do those basic skills for a running back. Its why the attempt to make him a wide receiver has been so costly for him.
Sounds like he didn't learn the age old lesson of googling before smack talking.
Zing.
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.
Best news I have heard all week....I will have to sip some bourbon this weekend to celebrate LoLUVA's continued demise.
...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.
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.
Loovull
Flo Rida
Stanford
SEC Tigers #2
Keith Price
I really think FSU will win this, but I just can't overlook the fact that Clemson is finding ways to get it done against everyone. ACC Tigers at least cover...
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.
Beating DUKE is like passing a physical...
going in you know you only have something to lose ...
but coming out feels like you've won the lottery.
Go HOKIES beat da DOOKIE out of the DOOKIES!
More sponsors, higher tv payout because they don't have to cover 28 games, and possibly higher ticket prices. It can be worked out...There's money to be made.
We got paid $2.5 for the CFA game, not bowl. There's money out there. Stop with the CFA games and such, and put that money into an elite game at the end of the year. Trying to load up a game early doesn't appeal to me as much as a battle of top ten teams at the END of the year. I'm sure they would switch funding if they knew they had good teams in the game.
He's going to take some officials and most likely announce this winter/closer to signing day.
Just WIN
Let's...
There's still a lot of football left. There will be a minimum of 3 losses between the 4 schools you mention for the ACC since they play each other. (F$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.
Is this what happens between the bowl games and the spring game?? 
Where's the higher payout going to come from? Companies won't front twice or three times the money they are now because they won't make that money back. You think bowl games will have multiple sponsors? "The Goodyear, Tostitos, AT&T Cotton Bowl?" That's just not going to happen because then they have to split profit and there is only so much money to be made.
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.
I know that's the "reward." But what if they allowed practice for ANY team up til Dec 15? That would eliminate the silly season stuff and cost of a road trip that the bowls become.
Along with the 24 teams would be a higher payout, resulting in a similar split as it is now. Nobody would be reciving less money, but lets be honest, how much are some of these bowls making? I understand the money getting distributed to the remainder of the teams in the conference. But that doesn't offset the logistics of taking an entire team across the country. Make the payouts higher, make it a reward, and stop the "our 7th team is better than your 9th!" crap.
Sidebar: The minimal amount of teams in bowls leads to a potentially bigger tournament for the playoffs. Approx 20% of teams make the March Madness tournament. It should be a similar number in football.
Not necessarily. There's not a pool of money out there divided between the multiple bowls. Each bowl organization determines its own payout independent of everyone else save for the BCS bowls whose payout is the same.
Stated otherwise, there are currently 35 bowls paying out $136,156,260, or an average of $3,890,179 per team. If there are only 12 bowls, as you propose, that does NOT mean each bowl will suddenly be paying out an average of $11,346,354 per team. That's just not how it works. (unless it does, in which case I accept my votedowns for inaccuracies)
(Source for numbers)