Can't deny Big 10 > ACC re: big games
- Thread starter yc_ballcat
- Start date
Why? Because there were more people in the stadium? That was a shitty football game. Both teams played poorly. How was that an epic event by any legitimate football measure?
Fair enough. VT & UNC are good opponents, and VT is of course an actual rival. Going to 9 conference games would help in this regard.
I replied because this was one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read and I had to make sure it was saved for future generations to study. Have a good day...
Both teams had stretches of poor play, not all of it unforced, but also stretches of high quality play, particularly given the less-than-ideal playing conditions. If you really think there were no great plays in that game, you're probably being too biased in your analysis.
The outcome of the game had a direct impact on the NC picture. There was drama. And yes, the atmosphere and setting of course played a role in making it an atypical victory.
Was 13-9 a well-played game? Was that not an epic W for Pitt regardless?
Any game that involves the number 1,2,3, and/or 4 teams in the rankings has a direct impact on the NC picture. If you want to raise a banner and celebrate because there were a bunch of people wearing white and shaking pom poms, have at it. Says more about the prism through which you view football games than my contrary analysis.
I replied because this was one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read and I had to make sure it was saved for future generations to study. Have a good day...
If you think that game was better than the Clemson/Louisville game, I doubt if you know if a football is blown up or stuffed. The original statement was that the Big 10 is far greater than the ACC for football games. If your criteria for that judgement is attendance and audience apparel, have at it. I'm guessing you have a collection of plastic white pom poms you are very proud of.
Translation: my stubborn (perhaps understandable) bias against PSU precludes me from making anything but a negative or dismissive conclusion. If the exact same game had been played at Heinz Field and featured a Pitt win over #2 my argument would be completely different.
So 13-9 must have been either (a) a tremendously well-played game or (b) an irrelevant game. Which one is it?
Your first error is assuming you are intellectually gifted enough to identify another person's biases. Your second error is assuming my answer to your idiotic question.
If the exact same game had been played at Heinz field, YOU would say that it could never have been as "epic" because of the seating limitation and because not everyone is dressed in the same color, therefore your silly hypothetical is moot.
IF, however, the same game had been played at Heinz and Pitt won the game over #2 with a QB going 8-25, a blocked FG attempt, a fumbled punt return, and only 276 yards of total offense, it would have been an "epic" win for Pitt fans...but hardly an "epic" football game.
AND, for the record, my opinion of WVU 2007 is that the Mountaineers managed one of the greatest shit-the-bed moments in all of sports. They missed two field goals, missed open receivers, displayed poor ball protection, and were unable to capitalize on some wildly horrific officiating. Was that game epic? Yeah, for WVU fans it was an epic failure. For Pitt fans it was epically fun to tap dance on the ashes of our rival. In the world of college football, it was just WVU spitting the bit.
No matter how you slice it, that game is hardly evidence that the Big 10 > ACC for football games. Unless you want to talk about attendance and audience participation, which apparently you do.
Yes, but also in the context of Pitt, more specifically opportunities for program boosting conference wins.
Sure, Clemson-Louisville was a great game, better than OSU-PSU. But that was largely the result of 1 player, a once-in-a-century player at a program like Louisville, and it was an anomoly. No other Clemson-Louisville game has had any significance at all. Perhaps Louisville's recent success changes that moving forward. We'll see.
The last "big" Clemson ACC game was a 52-7 embarrassment. Nearly every year, the Big 10 has a game like the one tonight which goes beyond a typical W. And no, it doesn't just revolve around attendance figures, regardless of how much you want to reduce it to that.
Since FSU's demise, the ACC has generally lacked marquee teams, signature games, and major impact. I'm not entirely convinced the Jameis Winston year(s) & Clemson last year have set a new standard.
Bottom line is regardless of aesthetics or purist analysis or attendance or anything else it was a huge W for PSU, in the same way 13-9 was a huge W for Pitt. When it comes to providing teams with opportunities for those kinds of victories, the Big 10 is superior to the ACC. Yes, as pointed out earlier, division alignment is one mitigating factor. But until VT or UNC elevate, or the ACC goes to 9 games, Pitt won't have as many opportunities. Just one issue to consider in the ongoing debate.
The Big 10 has 4 teams currently ranked in the Top 25. The ACC currently has 4 teams ranked in the Top 25.
Oh, and UNC is currently in the Top 25 and VT will probably be back in the Top 25 when they roll into town Thursday night.
Which league offers "superior" opportunities?
When VT (a true rival who Pitt fares well against) gets back to perennial top 10 status, or when Clemson is coming to Heinz every two years, you might convince me with that argument. Until then, you're essentially quoting me James Robinson's A:T ratio after the 2014 Florida game.
Still, VT does offer a meaningful game and prominent stage for Pitt, which is something to be thankful for, even if not quite on the same level.
What crap. Other than the "name" Ohio State, Clemson, Florida State, Miami-still, VA Tech, are pretty good name teams. The B1G has Michigan (who was not very good a few years ago), Ohio State, Michigan State 2-5 right now, and Wisconsin -?.
The Big 10 is a bullcrap conference this year no matter how you cut it. The fact that the Nits can get a share of their division crown proves it.
That PSU game last night was a once in a lifetime type win for them...
They still have a snowballs chance in hell in ever winning that division, while Pitt has a chance to win the coastal every year.
I'll take Pitt in the ACC coastal with a chance to win over finishing 3rd or 4th place every year like PSU.
They still have a snowballs chance in hell in ever winning that division, while Pitt has a chance to win the coastal every year.
I'll take Pitt in the ACC coastal with a chance to win over finishing 3rd or 4th place every year like PSU.
Since Penn St only wins said games once or twice a decade, I'd say it evens out.
What the f are you talking about? The FSU "demise"? Since they won the NC in 2013? What about the tOSU "demise" since 2014? Last I looked it was an ACC and an SEC team for the NC in 2015. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
The top of the ACC is better. The middle of the ACC is better. The bottom of the ACC is greatly better.
So yeah, the top of the B1G usually gets an easy ride up the polls; then typically gets smoked in the bowls.
So yeah, the top of the B1G usually gets an easy ride up the polls; then typically gets smoked in the bowls.
That's a very dumb post. It's definitely a case-by-case thing.
From 1987 to 2000, FSU never lost more than 2 games in a single year. In 8 of those years, they either had 1 loss or were undefeated. Twice during that span, their 2nd loss came in bowl games with title implications. Two other times, their 2nd loss came in a regular season game against the national champion or runner-up.
In 2001 they lost 4 games. In 3 of those games, they were blown out. In 2002, they lost 5 games. Perhaps demise is a bit too strong. But any FSU fan will tell you there was an unmistakeable decline.
This year's team has already been obliterated worse than any of the teams during that 14 year span quoted above. The only thing close was 31-0 loss to Miami one year and the Sugar Bowl vs Florida in 1996 season. And while Louisville is good, and Jackson incredible, FSU was not losing to lightweights. There are only a few WTF losses in that span.
Some might claim the ACC was weaker then. And there is more relative parity now and probably a greater abundance of talent spread out over a wider range of schools. Basically, the landscape is different, and perhaps it's unfair to judge current circumstances with the past. However, the notion that FSU has never been in decline and is as strong as ever is shortsighted at best.
My perspective was more historical than 2013. As noted in my response above, demise might have been too strong. Decline is perhaps a better characterization.
I have read this thread and reread it to try to understand where you're coming from and I have come to the conclusion that you are either trolling for the sake of trolling or you're one of the dumbest people I have ever communicated with in this forum.
What the hell are you talking about?!
I honestly don't understand what point you were trying to make?
Louisville has been in the ACC for like three years. Of course their past games versus Clemson weren't as big as this year's game.
Are you arguing that the Big 10 is a better football conference that the ACC? I would probably agree with that – most years. Perhaps not this year but most years.
However, we're talking about mild degrees of difference and neither is in the same universe as the SEC so that's exceedingly weird to brag about.
However, when you start talking about the "decline Florida State" – a program that won the national championship three years ago – you lose any credibility you may have otherwise had.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up as trolling. I refuse to believe you are as dumb as you are appearing to be here.
What the hell are you talking about?!
I honestly don't understand what point you were trying to make?
Louisville has been in the ACC for like three years. Of course their past games versus Clemson weren't as big as this year's game.
Are you arguing that the Big 10 is a better football conference that the ACC? I would probably agree with that – most years. Perhaps not this year but most years.
However, we're talking about mild degrees of difference and neither is in the same universe as the SEC so that's exceedingly weird to brag about.
However, when you start talking about the "decline Florida State" – a program that won the national championship three years ago – you lose any credibility you may have otherwise had.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up as trolling. I refuse to believe you are as dumb as you are appearing to be here.
Well, no program is going to stay in the top five program every single year - as Florida State did in the 80s and 90s. That was a historic run greatness for a reason and no one in the history of the sport could sustain that level of dominance.
Florida State is absolutely on the same level as Michigan and Ohio State and any assertion to the contrary is completely ludicrous.
I am one of those people at believes that Miami is going to become very good again very soon. I think Richt was a fabulous hire and that will soon become readily apparent to everyone.
The Hurricanes run in the 80s and 90s and this current Alabama run are the two best runs I've ever seen anywhere in my lifetime and I am not young. I believe they can get back to that level.
I also think Virginia Tech is going to be very good again soon. In other words, I think the ACC will provide Pitt with plenty of opportunities to win big football games.
That has nothing to do with Penn State and the Big Ten, it is just an observation about Pitt and the ACC - two things I actually care about.
The Hurricanes run in the 80s and 90s and this current Alabama run are the two best runs I've ever seen anywhere in my lifetime and I am not young. I believe they can get back to that level.
I also think Virginia Tech is going to be very good again soon. In other words, I think the ACC will provide Pitt with plenty of opportunities to win big football games.
That has nothing to do with Penn State and the Big Ten, it is just an observation about Pitt and the ACC - two things I actually care about.
Epic wins are for mediocre teams. Teams that are actually really good only have epic loses.
I don't even know why this fool is even here talking about chances for epic wins every other year.
Again, we beat you, which wasn't even epic. And OSU lost because they played like poo poo. So it's more like epic loss than epic win.
PSU fans actually think PSU is relevant on the national stage. At least Pitt fans know what we are as a program.
I don't even know why this fool is even here talking about chances for epic wins every other year.
Again, we beat you, which wasn't even epic. And OSU lost because they played like poo poo. So it's more like epic loss than epic win.
PSU fans actually think PSU is relevant on the national stage. At least Pitt fans know what we are as a program.
I don't see FSU declining at all...
The ACC has 2 of the top teams in the country in Louisville and Clemson.
Personally I think Louisville would run it up on anyone from the B1G this year.
The ACC has 2 of the top teams in the country in Louisville and Clemson.
Personally I think Louisville would run it up on anyone from the B1G this year.
the ABC on Saturday night at 8pm gave it a legit, bigtime feel. That's a hell of a spot, that ABC 8pm game, the premiere spot in college football IMO.
WVU shit the bed for a quarter and a half. After that, Pitt physically whipped their ass. And the tackling was superb.
What are you talking about? Pitt has one of those chances about every other year.
2016 #3 Clemson
2015 #5 ND
2013 NC FSU
2012 #3 ND
2009 #5 Cincy
2007 #2 WVU
A
anon_vmuicqnzlyp3u
Guest
why are the tickle monster faithful talking smack to pitt fans? I don't get it, we beat them. Shouldn't Sandusky U fans be trolling the ohio state board and not ours?
