The problem is that the QOS for those ACC teams to be .500 or better is so deplorable that their highest-ranked team is behind 2 BE teams that have already played each other, 2 MWC teams, and a WAC team, and your second place team is behind a MAC team, a C-USA team, and a third MWC team. While that bodes to how weak the schedules are this year, the problem is they're in this situation year-in and year-out, not to mention having fallen so far behind the BE in final rankings that the ACC champ is usually behind at least 2 BE teams.
You're trying to base long-term projections on just this year, which is flawed logic. The fact is the ACC has lost their BCS bowls since expanding, while the Big East has won all three of theirs since their conference retooling. Even for a down year in the BE, the fact is they're still proving to be a better conference on the field, and the rankings reflect that. If we consistently start to see two or so MWC teams, or at least a MWC and WAC team above the ACC champion every year, the ACC has real reason to worry that they may end up getting the boot in favor of the MWC. Their best chance to break that string was last year, when VaTech played a Kansas team that arguably didn't belong in the BCS (see Nebraska 2001), but they still lost to them. If anything the BE has proven they belong in the big games with convincing wins over SEC, ACC, and Big 12 champions, and they only need to be concerned ultimately with the basketball schools splitting in 2010, which won't affect football schools at all.
Disagree. The question was whether the ACC should lose their BCS bid. I am not going to critique polls here or BCS bowl wins. For the BE, the recent past hung with basically two schools..W. Virginia and Louisville. It is still mid-season.
Conferences are a collection of individual schools, and criteria among BCS is consistent. While there may be regional constraints; historically the ACC have members that have been in the thick of things. Pointing out a non-BCS conference school beat a BCS one is...so what? Since Michigan, a premier Big 10 school lost last year to Appalachian State and this year to Toledo, the Big 10 should drop from the BCS? Maybe Ohio State since they blew their last two, or is it three, championship bowls?
South Fla and Pitt may be ranked ahead of any ACC team. There are a couple ACC teams with equivalent records.
Panther, since you endorsed Tark's statement, maybe then, use your own phrase..."don't count your chickens before they hatch".
The ACC is not exiting the BCS and to suggest otherwise, is nonsense. To imply the BE is in a better permanent situation than the ACC is also partisan wishing. Offer Pitt or Rutger or Syracuse or Louisville or West Virginia or South Florida, ACC membership and see how they respond? Or the Big 10?
As to dismissing numbers, quantity is a factor. When the BE added L'ville, USF, and Cincy, only L'ville had made any appreciable noise. USF was still in the infant period with football and Cincy was no queen of the gridiron. BCS membership opens doors certain schools would not otherwise have.
Some points of clarification sec03 -
I will try to clarify my support for Tarkio's post and some other points as well.
I have NEVER
said the ACC SHOULD
lose their BCS status. Their status is SECURE
. There is no doubting that whatsoever.
I have NEVER
said the BEs long term position is secure while the ACCs is not.
My comments supporting Tarkio's post was only that the ACC has been OVERVALUED
in terms of on the field performance SO FAR
under the expanded ACC. The ACC was supposed to be THE
BCS Superconference - according to several statements by ACC coaches and ADs (doing their PR of course) challenging the SEC for supremecy. They were certainly paid that way under the contract they signed in 2003. What has turned out - SO FAR
- is that the ACC is having trouble on the field - especially in BCS games. As stated to out by Tarkio - the ACC is 1-9 in BCS games since 1998 and 0 for since expansion while the BE - a conference that the ACC wanted to destroy - is 3-0.
I truely believe at some point the ACC will eventually get 'it' and will be one of the top BCS conferernce. It just hasn't happened YET
. But they will NEVER
be the SEC.
Maybe the ACC champ will finish 12-1 and be ranked in the top-6. Who knows? But there was hardly any BUZZ
surrounding the conference this year.
It is certainly noted what I said earlier about the chickens comment.
is not a factor. Why is there no talk about the Pac 10 at 10 teams while they losing to the MWC?
What you suggest in your post that QUALITY
is more of a factor. Again, if the BE adds 4 teams from CUSA - who have low attendance and who lose their OOC games - do you think that helps or hurts the BE? None of those teams from CUSA is going to make the CFB take notice of the BE. Many fans looked at the BE in 2003 like - USF and Cincy - are you kidding me? What will happen if they take Memphis, ECU, UCF, etc?
The reason the BE is looked at like such a step child is simply because the current BE has only 3 teams with any significant history at all by the CFB people - SU, Pitt, and WVu and look at how bad SU and Pitt have done lately. As mentioned in the previous paragraph - Everyone else looks at USF, UL, UC, and UConn as 'who in the hell are they'. They have no 'history' - which is important to many people. If you had SU, WVu, and Pitt dominating the league, I honestly don't think many pundits or CFB fans would make it such a big deal, IMO.