Spoiled rotten down in Miami..

[Rrodr038]

The title of this thread is "The ACC is Just Better" not "The ACC will Be Better with Miami" or "Miami is better off in the ACC" ; if that's what you mean then just change it . Otherwise you need to include UM in your rants...Once you include Miami into the Big East rankings for those years (seeing as how they were still in the Big East when you made this thread and still in the Big East when these polls came out) it makes it a lot more even (maybe a little lopsided towards the Big East)...If I'm not mistaken it was:
2002:
11. NC state
13. Maryland
23. FSU
25. Virginia

2. Miami
14. Virginia Tech
18. Pittsburgh
20. West Virginia

2001:
11. Maryland
15. FSU
24. Georgia Tech

1. Miami
14. Syracuse
18. Virginia Tech
20. BC

2000:
5. FSU
16. Clemson
17. Georgia Tech

2. Miami
6. Virginia Tech

1999:
1. FSU
20. Georgia Tech

2. Virginia Tech

The only year that the ACC is clear cut better is '99 (right at the end of Miami's down cycle), other than that both in '01 and '02 the Big East was better once you enter in Miami. Compare both conferences with out their power houses (the ACC without FSU, the Big East without Miami) and the Big East still looks better with VT being the best program recently out of the group. Remember that if in the past few years Miami wasn't in the Big East, it would not have been dominating every Big East opponent they played, thus every other Big East schools' rankings would be higher. So all those rankings are pointless if you do not include Miami.

Either way, for you to say that the ACC has been more competitive as a conference is nonsence. Since FSU joined the ACC, they have been the Conference Champ every year except 2001 and last year (the most recent and telling year of the conference) nobody in the conference looked as if they deserved a BCS bid and FSU got blown out of the water in their bowl game.

If your interested in the past of ACC and how it compares to the Big East, do me a favor and tally up the total National Championships in football in the ACC and compare them to the Big East. Sorry, I just have to disagree with everything you have said in this thread.

 

[ZOD]

What do you think the point of the thread is ?

It is to show that OTHER than Miami, the Big East is not the Football Giant that some would make it out to be..

I guess I could have been a little more clear about the purpose of the thread but I think in the original post I did give Miami "props" about winning 5 titles in the same time span as 5 ACC teams in football...

I have brought up the past (prior to FSU in the ACC)....

1981 Clemson National Champions
1990 Georgia Tech Co-National Champions

What ? Do you want prior to 1981 ?

OK...Without even looking it up, it goes like this..

Penn State, Michigan, Texas, Nortre Dame, Nebraska, USC, Oklahoma, UCLA, Texas, Nortre Dame, Nebraska, USC, Oklahoma, Michigan, or something there abouts.....lol.....Until you get back to Army, Harvard, Yale, and so forth...

Sorry...Without Miami...The Big East has always just plain sucked...

And how is the SEC coming into the debate ? They are not on the table here....When Miami gets the invite we can debate that one too....

I have to admit that just thinking about the comparison of the ACC to the SEC in football.... I think the SEC would be a clear cut winner...

My point has been and will be that the ACC is just better than the Big East (for Miami of course)....

 

[iceblizzard69]

Originally posted by Rrodr038


If your interested in the past of ACC and how it compares to the Big East, do me a favor and tally up the total National Championships in football in the ACC and compare them to the Big East. Sorry, I just have to disagree with everything you have said in this thread.

Now he is going to bring up Clemson's National Championship in 1981 and think people care that they won some title 20 years ago but are now a mediocre program that can't recruit the best players in its own state (Demitris Summers!)

 

[ZOD]

And an Oh! BTW...

It really doesn't matter much to me in the grand scheme of things...Sure I check the records each year to see what's going on but my primary focus during football season is the Dolphins...I don't have time for much else...

What has made me livid though on more than one occassion is to listen and read some of the comments about the comparison between The Big East and The ACC coming out of the frothing mouths of the Northeastern media...

"The ACC is a Basketball Conference"..

"The Big East is a Football (Money) Conference"..

What do those two sentences really say ???...

I think I have shown that in comparison the ACC stacks up very well in the catergory of being a Football (Money) Conference when compared to the Big East...

So what are these people trying to say ? Are they trying to say that it's a wash...

Obviously, it's not......From a CASH and competitiveness standpoint....

 

[ZOD]

Ice,

He asked for the past...

"If your interested in the past of ACC and how it compares to the Big East, do me a favor and tally up the total National Championships in football in the ACC and compare them to the Big East. Sorry, I just have to disagree with everything you have said in this thread."

And I must say that your last comment wreaks of Smack talk instead of facts to debate...

Keep your eye on the ball !!!!!

 

[Rrodr038]

Originally posted by 1972dolphins
What do you think the point of the thread is ?

It is to show that OTHER than Miami, the Big East is not the Football Giant that some would make it out to be..

I guess I could have been a little more clear about the purpose of the thread but I think in the original post I did give Miami "props" about winning 5 titles in the same time span as 5 ACC teams in football...

I have brought up the past (prior to FSU in the ACC)....

1981 Clemson National Champions
1990 Georgia Tech Co-National Champions

What ? Do you want prior to 1981 ?

OK...Without even looking it up, it goes like this..

Penn State, Michigan, Texas, Nortre Dame, Nebraska, USC, Oklahoma, UCLA, Texas, Nortre Dame, Nebraska, USC, Oklahoma, Michigan, or something there abouts.....lol.....Until you get back to Army, Harvard, Yale, and so forth...

Sorry...Without Miami...The Big East has always just plain sucked...

My point has been and will be that the ACC is just better than the Big East (for Miami of course)....

No one ever has made the Big East to be a giant in college football even with Miami. They are a second or maybe third tier conference in comparison to the Big 12s, SECs, Pac-10s and Big 10s. All I know is that the Big East with Miami and Virginia Tech is better, or atleast equal to, than the ACC with just FSU.

You missed Pittsburgh in 1975 and 2 more times in the 30s-50s but...then again you missed my point entirely. Its not really fair to compare the Big East without Miami to the ACC with FSU. Its not even really fair to compare the Big East without Miami to the ACC without FSU. Both of those teams define their respective conferences and without them, who knows where the conferences would be. If we are talking Big East w/o Miami and Virginia Tech compared to the ACC (now) of course there is no comparison. But if we are talking as it has been with UM and Virginia Tech in the Big East, there is no reason to say the ACC is better. Even then, from a competetive standpoint, as I already said, UM's schedule in 2003 won't be easier than it will in 2004, in fact I belive it will be more difficult in 2003. UM's decision to move to the ACC is purely about the money and has nothing really to do with competitiveness. Shalala (UMs President) even went so far today on Sports Talk (560 AM in Miami) as to say that had the Big East been able to put up the same amount of money as the ACC, UM (and thus Virginia Tech) would have stayed in the Big East. They might be better off in the ACC in terms of money, but as far as competetiveness there is no question that staying in the Big East, as well as maintaining their current out of conference schedule was the better play. ACC really is not as impressive a football conference as you think it is...