The Big 10 is a bad football conference right now. I'll put UNC, Clemson, FSU and Louisville against Michigan, tOSU Nebraska and Wisky and it would be pretty close.
The rest of the Big 10 is really putrid compared to the rest of the ACC.
Can't deny Big 10 > ACC re: big games
- Thread starter yc_ballcat
- Start date
The rest of the Big 10 is really putrid compared to the rest of the ACC.
Because they know if they played OSU ten times, OSU would win 9 of them. PoSU fans brag about what they can, up until Saturday all they had were recruiting rankings and attendance.
Decline isn't even an accurate characterization. Florida St. has been on the upswing since the 2000-2009 drop off. (Florida St fans themselves even refer to the 2000s as the "lost decade.") Here is Florida St over the last 5 year:
2012: 12-2, ACC champions, Won Orange Bowl
2013: 14-0, National Champions
2014: 14-1, ACC champions, made playoffs
2015: 10-3
2016: 5-2 #12(14)
So, in the last five years, Florida St has gone 55-8, won a National Championship, 2 ACC championships, and 2 BCS bowls.
Now, le's compare that to Big Ten heavyweight Ohio St:
2012: 12-0
2013: 12-2
2014: 14-1 Won National championship
2015: 12-1 Won Fiesta Bowl
2016: 6-1 #6(8)
So, during the same time Florida St has been in "decline," Ohio St has gone 56-5, won a National Championship, 1 Big Ten Championship, 1 BCS bowl, and made the CFP once. Your entire premise is asinine.
Sorry, didn't watch the game, don't care about the outcome, it's an irrelevant game to me because one of the teams playing shouldn't even be playing football right now. And to top it off, it's a B1G game which is very irrelevant to me.
Dude, NATIONAL.PRIME-TIME.SATURDAY.NIGHT.BROADCAST.ON.ABC. That's not big enough for you? When was the last time Pitt was involved in one of those?
I don't know about epic wins and losses, but this is an epic thread.
Saturday night was a great win for their program, regardless of what anyone thought about the quality of play, playing conditions, officiating, etc. All that doesn't matter. It was a great win for PSU football against a true college football blue-blood that was in the National Title race in late October, against one of the game's all time great coaches.
For PSU, a program that has been through the dark ages, its a win that should be celebrated. I reminds me of our win against Miami back in 1997. Sure, you can be critical of the quality of play, caliber of opponent etc, but for that night, and at that point in time in Pitt football, none of that mattered. It was, and will always be considered a great, great win.
It doesn't mean PSU is back on the national stage. It doesn't mean they are on a collision course with greatness. They could easily slip up against any team remaining on their schedule. But they do have some tangible evidence that their football program is improving. With a young team, it should make their fans. excited for the future.
80 million people tuned into the 3rd Clinton-Trump debate. Was it the best debate EVER because of the prime time broadcast? Are they the greatest two candidates ever?
This is the problem with society today. It's not a matter of what the actual product is. It only matters if it's the shiniest bobble to capture the attention of the mindless masses.
To quote the Donald...yes the Penn State/OSU game was HUGE. Still a shitty game. Still two teams that didn't perform all that well. Still is absolutely MEANINGLESS as a lens to compare the two leagues.
The truth of the matter is that the Nits don't have a bad team. For a team that "suffered thru horrific sanctions"
last year, they nonetheless had five players drafted by the NFL. The Carnival Barker can recruit, and he's got a respectable DC who has their defense playing well.Ohio State learned a tough lesson: they thought they had an easy win going into the game; and with a 21-7 lead, they thought they could coast the rest of the way. They had more passing yards, more rushing yards, and they dominated time-of-possession. But in the end, they blew it.
Resting on one's laurels doesn't cut it against a respectable team, and the Nits do have a respectable team.
Hey tough guy...I see you are already talking shit about next year's game on BWI. You willing to put your money where your mouth is? You're giving me Pitt +30, right?
How much do you have in your wallet?
I just find it fascinating how they are all over here, spouting off. I wouldn't think of posting on BWI. Especially if we had recently lost to them on the field. Whatever.
Here's what I said that seems to be causing so much confusion:
"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."
The 2nd sentence should make clear I am not talking about recent years in saying "demise." But perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
You criticize my use of "decline" then proceed to say "2000-2009 drop-off". But we're talking about the same time frame (although you're being more generous to FSU). I wasn't talking about 2013 to 2016. If you want to get excited about their 4-loss 2010 and 2011 campaigns, and claim that as evidence of them being elite, be my guest. But that still equates to a decline from the glory days, which was my point.
I believe the two Winston years might be anomalies. Winston's ability to somehow not lose his eligibility and remain on the team merely propped them up briefly enough to look like an elite program again. Subtract him from those teams, do they still compete for those titles? Highly unlikely. This year's obliteration by Louisville (granted, good team & amazing player) makes me further skeptical that FSU is embarking on some new "glory" era. Will they be a strong top 20 program? Probably. Will they be a perennial top 5 program again? I doubt it, regardless of 2013 and 2014.
Fair enough. In focusing on conference, I did fail to give credit to the big-win opportunities against ND. Although, subtract ND and the much-maligned Big East gave Pitt the same number of opportunities for program boosting conference wins as the ACC. Perhaps the ACC provides more moving forward.
Right but you were not applying that standard across the board. That is my point. Can we talk about Michigan's decline? Can we talk about Penn State's precipitous decline? That's the point.
Your original premise and additional thoughts have been 100% debunked.
A little advice- either agree that the original post was uneducated nonsense or just quietly go away.
A little advice- either agree that the original post was uneducated nonsense or just quietly go away.
Interesting topic....
Assuming we are allowed to count Notre Dame, who is a 5/8th member....
I'd have to say that in 2015 we had:
Notre Dame at Clemson in the Hurricane remnants, which was pretty epic. Clemson held on for dear life in that one.
FSU at Clemson was a very dramatic game, too.
Clemson over North Carolina in the ACC title game. VERY dramatic and controversial ending to that one. Michigan State-Iowa was also very dramatic, but not a lot of offense.
In 2014:
FSU beat Clemson in overtime in the game that Sean McGuire started because Jameis Winston was suspended.
FSU roared back from 21 down against Louisville to win 42-31 - that was a great game with a lot of future pro players on both sides.
FSU beating ND at FSU when ND lost due to an offensive pass interference call on a Notre Dame TD.
FSU squeaking out a win over Georgia Tech in the ACC title game. Sure was a lot more interesting than Ohio State's beat down of Wisconsin.
All three of Louisville's games against Clemson have been very close, with Clemson winning each time. Louisville lost by 3 last year at home (in a game that Clemson dominated statistically). Both times in Death Valley, Louisville has trailed by 6 very late in the game and needed to convert a fourth down near Clemson's goal line, only to be turned away. As you mentioned, this rivalry only remains a big deal if Louisville continues to play at a top 20 level in most years.
How has my premise that the Big Ten provides more opportunities (for Penn State) for big wins than the ACC does for Pitt been “100% debunked?"
Citing past games against ND and Big East teams doesn’t really debunk it.
Comparing FSU (who Pitt plays once every half-dozen years) to OSU (who Penn State plays every year) doesn’t debunk it.
Nitpicking over whether the game was considered "big" beforehand vs. afterward, or how fundamentally sound it was played, doesn’t debunk it.
Division alignment and PSU’s record in those games are the only reasonable counter-arguments presented to the original idea (the Big Ten provides more opportunities for big wins [for PSU] than the ACC does [for Pitt]). And maybe the 'better positioned to play for conference title' view. Everything else has either been a misreading of what I wrote, auto-pilot antagonism from people who think, incorrectly, that I’m a Penn State fan, or a separate discussion of big ACC games that don’t involve Pitt.
Perhaps this year ends up being a wash because of the Clemson game. Tomorrow's opportunity is great, but not quite the same.
No, there is no confusion. Florida St.'s "decline" is long gone. It's been gone several years. Now, to your point about Florida St.'s current success being an anomaly, no it isn't. The reason for Florida St's downturn in the last decade was simple: Bobby Bowden got old and stayed on the job too long. Florida St has the resources to remain a top program. They have a large fan base, competitive facilities, and one of the richest talent beds in the nation in their own backyard. You don't need to be worried about Florida St.
To you point about Florida St not being able to compete for titles without Jameis Winston, yes, they could have. In 2012, the year before Winston played, Florida St went 12-2, won the ACC, and won a BCS bowl. So yes, they could have competed.
A couple more points. I'm not counting 2010 & 11 for Florida St "upswing." I laid out a table for you, which ran from 2012-2016. That should have been your first clue. The reason I wrote "2000-2009" in my previous post is because that's how decades are divided. You know, the 80s ran from 1980-89, the 90s ran from 1990-1999. It was a generalized statement to accent the "lost decade" comment. If you really want to get technical, Florida ST went 11-2 and played for the National Championship in 2000, so that wouldn't be part of the "decline" anyway.
You also made this comment:
You realize, Clemson and Louisville have only played three times......ever. That includes the game this year.
The bottom line is, your entire premise is stupid. The "opportunity" to win big games doesn't mean jack shit unless you actually win them. This is about as stupid as Vanderbilt bragging about the big "opportunities" they have playing in the SEC. As I said, as it stands, now, Penn St wins their "big opportunities" maybe once or twice a decade. Next time you want to brag, how about winning some kind of title, division, conference, NY6 bowl, National Championship, something that you can actually hang a banner for, not just a random upset every now and then.
Last edited:
When Michigan slipped as a national presence, Michigan State filled that void. There is a clear correlation in MSU’s rise and UM’s fall. Wisconsin was there, too.
Granted, to your points about degrees of subtlety and in comparing with the SEC, MSU got obliterated twice by Alabama during that time. But they did rep the Big Ten well otherwise in Michigan's absence.
When FSU slipped from the ranks of title contenders (just to be clear for the dolts: I'm talking about 2001) who filled that void? Maryland posted 10 wins in 2001-2003, played in the Orange Bowl in 2001, yet still got blown out each year by FSU. FSU rebounded a bit in 2003, but not completely. No one else really stepped up; FSU was still the best program. So the ACC raided the Big East precisely at that moment to remain relevant. As soon as FSU went 8-4, the ACC went into panic mode.
Wake Forest won the league one year. I mean, no one really remembers what happened. The ACC was largely an afterthought from 2001-2011. 70-33 being perhaps the low point. Since then, the ACC has definitely improved.
This is my last foray into this conversation because it's stupid. It's circular logic and there is no end to it. It's basically conversational whack a mole.
However, when Michigan State steps in for Michigan, that is a net loss for the Big Ten. It's like if in basketball, say North Carolina and Duke have a few down years and NC State and Wake Forest have up years, that is not the same on the perception front.
Perhaps an even better analogy is what is happening in the Big 12 right now. One of the reasons why that conference is considered down right now is because Texas is down. It does not matter that Baylor has filled the void for Texas. Texas is down so the conference is down.
I don't know how anyone can look at the ACC and see it as anything but a rising star? That is not conference chest beating. It is stone-cold analysis.
Florida State has reinvested in its program and is very good. Clemson is probably better as a program than it has ever been. Louisville is unquestionably better than it has ever been and they have been mostly very good for a while and they have a ton of money to maintain their success.
Programs like Virginia Tech and Miami – which have typically been somewhere between good to excellent – have appeared to hire good coaches and are almost certainly going to be good again.
Even depth programs like North Carolina, NC State and Pitt look like they are in an upward trajectory.
The ACC does not have the same type of resources that the Big Ten has so it's hard to imagine them consistently being a better football conference. However, it's also hard for me to imagine it not being a competitive football conference going forward because the demographics ensure as much.
The SEC is still generally going to be considered the top conference in college football and there are not too many things anyone can do to change that. In most years, the Big Ten will be number two with the ACC and the PAC-12 vying for that third spot. If Texas and Oklahoma reestablish themselves, then the Big 12 one or the conversation too.
I think the ACC has an advantage because of its location. I also believe there are years – and perhaps this is one of them – where the ACC can even be considered the second best conference. There are an awful lot of bottom feeders in the Big Ten right now.
However, when Michigan State steps in for Michigan, that is a net loss for the Big Ten. It's like if in basketball, say North Carolina and Duke have a few down years and NC State and Wake Forest have up years, that is not the same on the perception front.
Perhaps an even better analogy is what is happening in the Big 12 right now. One of the reasons why that conference is considered down right now is because Texas is down. It does not matter that Baylor has filled the void for Texas. Texas is down so the conference is down.
I don't know how anyone can look at the ACC and see it as anything but a rising star? That is not conference chest beating. It is stone-cold analysis.
Florida State has reinvested in its program and is very good. Clemson is probably better as a program than it has ever been. Louisville is unquestionably better than it has ever been and they have been mostly very good for a while and they have a ton of money to maintain their success.
Programs like Virginia Tech and Miami – which have typically been somewhere between good to excellent – have appeared to hire good coaches and are almost certainly going to be good again.
Even depth programs like North Carolina, NC State and Pitt look like they are in an upward trajectory.
The ACC does not have the same type of resources that the Big Ten has so it's hard to imagine them consistently being a better football conference. However, it's also hard for me to imagine it not being a competitive football conference going forward because the demographics ensure as much.
The SEC is still generally going to be considered the top conference in college football and there are not too many things anyone can do to change that. In most years, the Big Ten will be number two with the ACC and the PAC-12 vying for that third spot. If Texas and Oklahoma reestablish themselves, then the Big 12 one or the conversation too.
I think the ACC has an advantage because of its location. I also believe there are years – and perhaps this is one of them – where the ACC can even be considered the second best conference. There are an awful lot of bottom feeders in the Big Ten right now.
Last edited:
As a UofL fan and alum, I can see that there is at least some merit to the "conference X gives us more opportunities to play in big games" argument. It's certainly clear that the ACC gives us more opportunities to play in big games than the Big East or AAC did. But the most important point to realize is that 50% of any big game is how good YOUR team is. Pitt will play in many more big games if they are consistently in contention for ACC championships each and every year.
Your continual commenting on this topic is the real life proof that you can't coach stupid.
