Is the ACC the best football conference?
 

Notwithstanding the absolute dreck that was Miami v. Florida State, there are now 6 teams from the ACC in the top 25 (and at least 4 deserve to be there)... Clemson knocked off #17 A&M over the weekend (a game I was lucky enough to be able to attend, a nailbiter) while NC State played Va. Tech to the wire.

Is the ACC the best football conference this year? Or, a step further, the best college sports conference all tolled?

I think the SEC is probably the best; but the ACC is close.

Listening to Miami and FSU last night on the radio made me think of a flag football game gone bad.

On TV it was more like watching a 3-hour train wreck video.

Thank goodness I had to drive to Chicago last night.

Nope.

OK, if I had asked this question BEFORE last night's game, what would you have said? :)

Not to nit-pick, but can you define these titles more specifically?

I guess best = most competitive as far as football is concerned. And as far as best college sports conference, I would say in all sports, meaning ALL. Though for most of us, that information would be limited to football and basketball. But I would consider the "best" to be the most consistently high quality competition across the board.

Up until last night I would have said yup. Now, nope.

I have real hope that BC will beat FSU now. Badly ;)

I had pegged BC as FSU's second loss. Assuming we beat Citadel, it should be our first, unless one of those QBs grows up quickly and/or the defense finds a secondary and continues to harrass the QB like last night. I'm afraid, though, that at least half those sacks were on Wright, and not completely attributable to a great pass rush.

So you mean the conference, top to bottom? Or do you mean the best representation among top teams?

Interesting question. Sometimes it's hard to define "best" when it comes to conferences. Like the Big ten(11) might have the best bottom half of any conference this year. I don't believe that the top two teams are as good as the top two teams from other power conferences but it's hard to argue with a conference that is 10-0 right now(top to bottom that is). Sure some of those wins were laughers but teams like Penn state and Illinois did beat two big east teams and Wisco beat a pretty good BG team. So it depends a lot of what you are looking for in a conference.

As an ACC fan, I cannot say we are the best, really. We haven't put a team in the BCS title game since FSU in 2000. (I don't count Miami's two appearances since Miami was in the Big East at the time) We have a lot of quality teams, but we don't have what I would consider championship-calibre teams. The Miami-FSU game illustrated that pretty well last night. The two marquee teams in the conference looked absolutely dreadful last night and would likely have been manhandled by a team like USC. We are probably the deepest, though, since aside from Wake and Duke (and I'll put UNC in this group this year), just about any of the teams can at least have a shot at the division title, and therefore try to win the CCG in Jacksonville. Virginia Tech is IMO the team to beat, but they can be beaten.

If you extend to all sports, then you still have to see how the Big East is going to shake out as a 16-team league. They'll get plenty of bids just on size alone, but that doesn't necessarily speak to quality within the conference. Sure, you have Louisville, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and a few others making a very strong top, but SJU, SHU, USF, and a few more make up a pretty average at-best bottom. Meanwhile, the ACC has 12 teams and once again only a few teams (Clemson, FSU, maybe VT, maybe Miami...both of them need to prove last year wasn't a fluke before I move them out of this group) really don't have a decent shot at winning the conference championship. Again, the ACC has depth, but the Big East has volume. It'll be hard to say how deep the Big East truly is because they won't all play one another this year (a mistake, IMO).

Beyond that, the ACC has plenty of good teams in the Olympic sports, but none of them aside from UNC's women's soccer team and Duke's women's golf team have won national titles of late.

In this case, both. Save Duke (ok, I know you can't REALLY do that when arguing the overall conference strength, but every conference has its doormat) , I think it may be the strongest top to bottom conference in the country, and the toughest top teams since Va Tech is widely considered a national title contender, while Miami and FSU are considered top 10 possibles (although after last night, top 25 is pushing it).

Edit to the last bit of the last sentence.

In football this year I think it's a toss-up between the Big Ten and the SEC. In basketball I think the Big East is pretty untouchable now that they've added Louisville and Cincy to an already strong group.

I'll take the Big 10 and SEC easily over the ACC. Va Tech was very lucky to win it's game and it appeared to me last night FSU and Miami both are very flawed teams. FSU has no QB and Miami has horrible special teams. I think from the Big 10 alone Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio State would all be the best team in the ACC.

Big 10 was 10-0 this weekend. ;)

You can't use this week's games to declare that three Big 11 teams would win the ACC...look at who each team played. Between VT, Miami, FSU and NC State you very likely have four of the top 10 defenses in the country. Three of those teams rolled out new starters at quarterback in their games. Heck, if any of those four schools played Miami of Ohio, Northern Illinois or Ball State, everyone would be raving about how the ACC was going to be an offensive powerhouse this year.

Depending on how Florida's and LSU's season shake out, I'd give either the SEC or ACC the nod as top conference. Big 10 doesn't begin to approach either one.

The Big 10 is NOT as good as the SEC.

Sure some of the big 10 teams played weak opponents but so did some of the ACC and SEC. East carolina(loss!), vandy(loss!), navy(almost loss), and W. michigan(close in the 4th quarter) don't scare too many people. I'll take the bottom 4 big ten teams(MSU, PSU, Ill, and IU) over the bottom 4 ACC schools(maryland, wake, UNC, duke) or the bottom 4 SEC schools(Miss, Miss st, UK, vandy) right now. Are the big 10's top as good as other conferences top? Maybe not but we are going to find out soon.

BTW, feel free to argue over who belongs at the bottom of each conference this was just a first pass.

I'd put the SEC on top of college football and the Big East on top of college basketball, though the ACC is up there in both sports.

I don't think you can answer this kind of question with any certainty, and certainly not at the very beginning of the season. Let's see how the rest of the season plays out with non-conference matchups and bowl games before we make this kind of call.

Vandy is much better than people think. My view on their schedule

Sept. 1	at Wake Forest (ESPNU)	W 24-20
Sept. 10	at Arkansas	W or L
Sept. 17	OLE MISS (JP)	W
Sept. 24	RICHMOND	W
Oct. 1	MIDDLE TENNESSEE	W
Oct. 8	LSU	L
Oct. 15	GEORGIA [HC]	L
Oct. 22	at South Carolina	W or L
Nov. 5	at Florida	L
Nov. 12	KENTUCKY	W
Nov. 19	at Tennessee	L

I don't think a 7-4 season is out of the question. Cutler is a very good QB, and they have just as much talent as SC and Arkansas (who will be looking forward to their Southern Cal game the next week). If those two games were at home, Vandy would have to be a favorite. Away, they could win both, split, or lose both.

I think the big 10's top 4 are as good or better than any other conference. Of course the season is still young, but the big 10 has 3 teams ranked in the top 10, and Purdue isn't far behind that. Michigan, Ohio State, and Iowa all look to be tough teams this year. They are right up there with the SEC's top flight teams.

Pac 10 has had the last two national champs and have the #1 team in the country...you can talk top to bottom all you want, but in the end the Pac 10 has come out on top last two years and are #1 right now...say what you will about Washington or Arizona, but the heisman and national champs play in the pac 10..until somebody knocks them out of the national title race all your talk in meaningless. And dont give me they dont play the tough schedule others do, becuase they beat va tech both of the last two years and pasted ohklahoma in the NC game...

This saturday ASU vs LSU will say ALOT about how the rest of the Pac 10 stacks up, but one way or another the Pac 10 is the best until someone else wins the NC...People talk about the pats being the best team becuase they win superbowls, not because they have a tough division.

LSU was national champs in 2003.

Polls this time of year don't mean a whole lot, so the argument of which conference has how many teams ranked doesn't hold a lot of water for me.

Once the season is done and we can see what the inter-conference results are, we'll have a better idea of how the various conferences stack up vs. each other (though that's still an imperfect way of deciding things).

Wrong. There was no national champion that year, nor has there been one in any year, as the NCAA has no official national champion in football.

LSU split the major recognized polling for a football national champion in 2003 with USC.

1.5 if you want to go that route, but technically they only got half too...ill give you the split, fair enough...but they did win the AP...i wont give you auburn or utah since they didnt finish #1 in anything...USC was the AP champ, LSU was the BCS champ...different sides of the same story...one way or another, USC is going for #3...

If you dont see that, then even just last years means Pac 10 is #1 till someone else wins it...it still sits in Pac-10 trophy cases :p

Damn he sounds smart there :eek:

As much as I like the Pac-10 and think they are vastly underrated, basing your argument on which is the best conference based solely on which one has the best single team is not going to fly.

i figure i cant argue top to bottom since no one will believe the bottom of the pac-10 is as good as the bottom of others(even though i think it is), and no one will believe the top is as good as others(even if i think it might be...USC is, ASU we shall find out about saturday with LSU, and Oregon and UCLA could be dangerous) i figure since no matter what i say only ASU beating LSU will change their minds on that i might as well go with the only argument people will listen to.

If you want to get technical, LSU finished the year ranked #1 in the BCS rankings, the USA Today poll, the Massey ratings, the Sagarin ratings and a few more. USC finished #1 in the AP. That gives them more like 1.1 or 1.2 over the past two years...not 1.5.

The fact remains that USC was #1 in one of the 2 rankings generally recognized as the unofficial crowner of a football national champion.

It was a split title that year, as it has been in multiple seasons. There's nothing wrong with that. I could go on and on about how Washington topped virtually every ranking and poll at the end of the 1991 season and had the closest 2nd place finish in the AP voting history, but the reality is everyone considers 1991 to be a year of split champions, just at it was in 2003.

Not in the South, they don't...

You had three methods available in 2003...a system to decide the #1 ranking on the field (BCS - won by LSU), purely analytical systems to determine the best team (CPU rankings - won by LSU) and a subjective system run by media members who relished a chance to thumb their noses at the BCS (AP poll - won by USC). IMO, due to the inherent biases, an AP championship has about as much merit to it as the Auburn Herald rankings that put the Tigers at #1 after last season.

But whatever, I'm not here to debate the past....but don't be so sure that people recognize the results of what has become an irrelevant poll.

Quite frankly, the AP poll has been electing national champions well before any other ranking, so it's given a higher position (to a lot of people including myself).

It doesn't really matter that the South doesn't consider 2003 a year to be split national champions (just like it doesn't matter that Nebraska doesn't consider 1997 to be a split national championship year), everyone else does, as evidenced from the 3-peat talk. If the AP was just trying to thumb its nose at the BCS, then explain last year (when they easily could have done so, but didn't).

Btw, there are also plenty of people in the South who really didn't seem to care about the BCS and the computers when Auburn was denied a chance at the national championship game last year... some Southerners still consider the Tigers to be the 'true' national champions.

Three-peat talk started with (surprise, surprise) the media. They only want to validate themselves.

Because they are correct. They are the ones who started the whole national champion thing, so their opinion on the matter is more valid.

Actually, the Helms Athletic Foundation started it in 1889. Maybe we should find out who they liked better in 2003.

I believe what you are referring to is actually the Pac-1, not the Pac-10.

Um... actually the Helms Athletic Foundation RETROACTIVELY picked national champions. It actually arose in 1941, a few years after the AP in 1936. The Helms also shut down business in 1982.

Though at least Helms actually called it a national champion other than other mathematical formulas which were just power ratings, which AFAIK, no team raised up and trumpeted to all others in the land. IIRC, the AP was the first organization to call their top team the "National Champion", verified by NCAA.org:

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_fo...st_champs.html



Indicating that the AP in 1936 was the first "National Champion".

Sour grapes, and selective as well - witness all the bitching about the BCS not getting Auburn involved last year.


A system also based on a poll just like the AP, and one which denied USC the chance to play LSU.


Purely analytical systems written by human beings with subjective biases.


Thumb their nose at the BCS, or recognize a deserving team?


Not at all the same thing. The AP poll is comprised of voters from around the country. And if thumbing their nose at the BCS was so important to that bloc of AP voters, why didn't Auburn top their poll last year?


Irrelevant in your opinion. I think you'd find that it holds about at much relevance to the average fan as any other method. The poll of coaches is certainly not immune to controversy and bias as we saw last year with the Texas/Cal issue, and none of the computer systems hold universal appeal.

The main point is it's intellectually dishonest to say that '03 didn't have a split unofficial champion. In the absence of an official means of crowning the champ, the results in '03 were the 2 major polls split on who was the champion. LSU fans were pissed they weren't consensus champs in '03 - it's nothing new. Happened quite a bit after '91 as well.

From what I'm reading, both the Rissman Trophy and Rockne Trophy were valued possessions prior to the AP poll.

Of course, it's irrelevant now since I found the NCAA page that lists the polls and rankings that they choose to promote:

2003
LSU: BCS, Billingsley, Colley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT, Massey, NFF, Sagarin, Seattle Times, USA/ESPN
Southern California: AP, Eck, Matthews, NY Times

So in 2003, can we agree that USC only won 0.267 national championships?

No, personally, I consider the AP as the "real" national championship selector.

But I'll say split for those who foolishly think that other rankings matter in deciding the champion of college football.

I quit reading here because 'denied' implies that USC deserved to play LSU. According to the system agreed to by the PAC-10 (and by proxy, USC) they didn't.

No. The average fan still only bothers paying attention to the AP and the coaches poll, so in the 2 main polls it was split.

Agree to disagree, then. I don't consider the AP as anything meaningful to the MNC process.

Whatever. Sour grapes rules the day apparently...

I have never considered college football to have a 'national champion.' I think it's silly to argue about in the absence of a real tournament or playoffs.