Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC
- Thread starter WakeForestRanger
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
deacdixieboy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 14,239
- Reaction score
- 6,893
The Atlantic is typically rated the 2nd toughest division by multiple metrics. The SEC East is almost always in the bottom 2. This isn’t SEC hate. It’s legitimately based on the strength of the division by metrics.
thatguy2016
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2017
- Messages
- 10,925
- Reaction score
- 3,951
They have three ten win seasons since 1985 (2011-2013). If they’re a sleeping giant they are comatose.
There is a limited number of places he could go that would have an SEC payout, better facilities, potential recruiting grounds, and engaged fanbase if he runs off a few 10-win seasons and makes it to the SECCG.
The SEC East has played in the SECCG every year.
And what are you talking about. If you think the meat of the ACC Atlantic makes up a big challenge for Clemson every year you're kidding yourself. What is the marquee OOC win for the ACC over the past few years that didn't involve Clemson in the CFP ? Clemson against Texas A&M in 2019 ?
The best OOC wins from last year are Pitt over UT and UNC-CH over Wake. Meanwhile NC State lost to Mississippi State by two touchdowns. This conference seems to intentionally avoid decent out of conference matchups that aren't rivalry games. UNC-CH has lost two straight to USC.
In one week last season, Miami got blown out at home by Michigan State, Pitt lost at home to Western Michigan, and Va Tech lost at WVU, while Duke won a BIG game against Northwestern.
Yes- Spurrier had a great run for 3 years at USC but that’s largely due to getting 2 in state once in a generation players in Clowney and Lattimore. Also- didn’t hurt that Florida and Tennessee were down and while good - Georgia wasn’t on same level they are now. Does Beamer have ability to do well there? Sure but he doesn’t have nearly as high of a ceiling as Florida, Georgia, or even Tennessee. I wouldn’t exactly call USC a sleeping giant - yes they have under-achieved recently but it’s they’re not exactly a national brand and South Carolina isn’t exactly packed with high school football talent. Most of Clemson’s best players last 10 years have come from outside of SC- other than Hopkins. SC hasn’t won a conference championship since the ACC in 1969.
deacdixieboy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 14,239
- Reaction score
- 6,893
Now do the same thing for the SEC East. Also, all of those teams you mentioned are in the Coastal.
thatguy2016
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2017
- Messages
- 10,925
- Reaction score
- 3,951
Which rating systems typically have the Atlantic rated 2nd, and the SEC East in the bottom two?
timthedeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- 91
Calling BS on any metric having ACC Atlantic in the top 2 in the last 5 years. It’s (1) SEC West (2) Big Ten East
Those places open up plenty often. You really think all of Harsin, Kelly, Sark and Venables all make it to year 5 playing in the same division? Although probably won't be divisions at that point. Harsin probably doesn't make it past next year. Napier hasn't exactly started well with the fans. Saban will retire eventually. NFL could come calling for Day. Harbaugh is on thin ice after the stunt he pulled with the Vikings. Freeman is an ace recruiter but coaching ability is TBD. If he rips off a couple 10 win seasons at South Carolina then some top job will be open and someone will make him a huge offer.
macktheknife
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,966
- Reaction score
- 624
What's not to hate about the SEC. The year Clemson beat them, Clemson entire Athetic budget 1O8 million. Alabama 170 million. It's really funny.
macktheknife
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,966
- Reaction score
- 624
Everybody talks about the revenue side. There is also the expense side. Michigan was in the hole 44 million two years ago. UCLA was broke. Maryland broke. Rutgers spend more than NC State on their athletic program. Some of these so called college football gurus suck at managing expenses. The SEC is just ridiculous in the ROI of winning teams compared to what they spend.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,196
- Reaction score
- 22,209
Another way to put that is the SEC is good at getting their coaches, staff, and athletic department staff paid.
Tobacco Road
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,859
- Reaction score
- 722
2 once in a generation players at the same time? Literally!
Dali Llama
Well-known member
Also curious about this. I find that very hard to believe.
deacdixieboy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 14,239
- Reaction score
- 6,893
I’m not doing the research so maybe I’m off by a spot or 2. I’m 99.9% sure I’ve seen that twice in the last 3-4 years though.
I would take that a step more and say none of those 4 guys you mentioned will make it 5 years (maybe Venables).
MrBojangles
Well-known member
Revenue vs. Expenses ...
Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but how much fucking money does Wake (or UNC or UVA or Stanford or Washington or Duke) really need to run a competitive athletic department? Somebody needs to take the checkbook away from the trust fund baby in charge at Michigan, if they are losing 44 million dollars on their athletic department.
The solution seems pretty simple and reminds me of the movie Dave, where the President switches places with an accountant who finds a way to reduce expenses to get a bill passed. Maybe most of the athletic directors in the Power 5 conferences need to switch places with their local CPA or one of their school's accounting professors for a year, who can explain to them how not to spend more than they make. It's not that tough a concept to grasp.
There are at least 300 other universities in this country that manage to spend less than 50 million dollars a year to run their athletic departments. The fact that the "poor ACC schools" have to make do on $50,000,000 per year does not generate much sympathy among the ECU, App State, Davidson, James Madison, Villanova, Boise State, Georgetown's of the world, who have to figure out how to do it on much less than that. The fact that the SEC and Big Ten schools make more money than that and still can't break even is ridiculous. They apparently need to hire someone to control their spending more than anyone does.
Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but how much fucking money does Wake (or UNC or UVA or Stanford or Washington or Duke) really need to run a competitive athletic department? Somebody needs to take the checkbook away from the trust fund baby in charge at Michigan, if they are losing 44 million dollars on their athletic department.
The solution seems pretty simple and reminds me of the movie Dave, where the President switches places with an accountant who finds a way to reduce expenses to get a bill passed. Maybe most of the athletic directors in the Power 5 conferences need to switch places with their local CPA or one of their school's accounting professors for a year, who can explain to them how not to spend more than they make. It's not that tough a concept to grasp.
There are at least 300 other universities in this country that manage to spend less than 50 million dollars a year to run their athletic departments. The fact that the "poor ACC schools" have to make do on $50,000,000 per year does not generate much sympathy among the ECU, App State, Davidson, James Madison, Villanova, Boise State, Georgetown's of the world, who have to figure out how to do it on much less than that. The fact that the SEC and Big Ten schools make more money than that and still can't break even is ridiculous. They apparently need to hire someone to control their spending more than anyone does.