Cuban Dave 9
Wokeup this mornin n I got myself a beer
Who's avoiding the argument?Cuban Dave 9 said:
Cuban Dave 9 said:
well, I thought I answered that already...but that still doesn't mean you weren't avoiding either...
all I'm saying is that you can't talk about the current state of the ACC by how it was when it was completely different in '98...I mean what are we really arguing about...the ACC or the teams in the ACC? To argue about the ACC is kinda pointless, because it's just a label...we're talking about the teams in the ACC - and the teams in the ACC right now have more than one BCS win since '98.
Cuban Dave 9
Wokeup this mornin n I got myself a beer
It's a label that gets you in the BCS over C-USA, MAC, WAC, etc. And you're right about the ACC being different back in '98. The conference was deeper as far as teams. You know FSU and UM will be back...It's just a down year for the ACC. I am sure the original topic was all about that. To put Big East wins in the ACC is sandbaggery.
Cuban Dave 9 said:
Right, right...the label is important, but we're not talking about the fall of the label, we're talking about the fall of the teams that have the label. The ACC was not deeper back then, are you serious? There are 6 ranked teams in the ACC right now, and that does NOT include two of the more talented teams in Miami and FSU. This conference is very deep right now, and with Butch joining UNC, and FSU and Miami coming back up next year, we may be rivaling the SEC as far as intraconference competitiveness.
If you want to label "ACC wins" you have to divide it into two different time periods...so in the past two seasons, the ACC has 0 BCS wins...I can accept that argument.