Don't stick a fork in the ACC yet...

[Thiefery]

If you're saying they lost/struggled against Cuse, they most definitely did. They also beat Bama by 28, and took down OSU twice in the CFP. And that 2019 OSU team was insane.

insane? they didn't play anyone that good til the CFP lol.

 

[ericd7633]

insane? they didn't play anyone that good til the CFP lol.

They played 5 top 25 teams before the CFP and won by an avg margin of 23 ppg. They were the most efficient team(offense & defense combined) and that was with not even winning the Natty. They were also #1 in SP+. They are better than a bunch of teams that actually won a Natty.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Getting UGA off the yearly schedule is a huge benefit to Missouri. Getting rid of divisions hurts UGA because they've been the dominate SECE program the last 7 seasons. But for everyone else it gets basically a guaranteed loss of the schedule.

I am not sure you understand how the schedule worked and now works.

Here is what every team in the east played, except themselves:

UGA, UF, UTjr, USCjr, Ky, Vandy, Mizzou - every year. In addition to that they played 1 regular West team, and 1 West team every 6 years. That means that unless they played them every year, they played Bama, LSU, ATM, Auburn and Ole Miss once every 6 years.

Now, unless they get the annually, they play Bama, LSU, UGA, ATM, Auburn, UTjr, twice every four years.

I am leaving out OU and TX as this is a comparison of SECE and SECW.

Every team in the SECE had their schedule get more difficult. Instead of getting Bama, LSU, ATM, and Ole Miss every 6 years, they get them every other year. And they still get UGA, UF, and UTjr every other year.

What's more difficult in a 6 year period?

6 UGA
1 Bama
1 LSU
1 OM
1 ATM
1 Auburn
6 UF
6 UTjr

or

3 UGA
3 Bama
3 LSU
3 OM
3 ATM
3 Auburn
3 UF
3 UTjr

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I understand what you mean but at the end of the day any team outside the P2 is taking a P2 invite and all that money as they should. Especially since it's now legal for schools to pay players. The cost of wins some seasons is a small price to pay to remain relevant. I'm serious when I say I'd rather be 9-3 with an SEC schedule (and that conference payout) then 11-1 in the B12 (and that conference payout).

I get where you are coming from. Sure, who wouldn't want the extra money. But, going 9-3 and missing the CFP more often than not for team that believes they are national champion material isn't going to work. They better spend the extra money well and be ready to compete.

They will say they will take the $50 million and regularly win the SEC/B1G because that is who they are. But there isn't anything we can look at that would say that's true.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I get where you are coming from. Sure, who wouldn't want the extra money. But, going 9-3 and missing the CFP more often than not for team that believes they are national champion material isn't going to work. They better spend the extra money well and be ready to compete.

They will say they will take the $50 million and regularly win the SEC/B1G because that is who they are. But there isn't anything we can look at that would say that's true.

9-3 in the SEC gets you in the 12 team playoffs many years imo. Plus with that extra dough you likely have better players than 11-1 B12. I honestly don’t think anyone is saying ClemU/FSU is going to come in and win the whole thing yearly. Just that they deserve a seat at the table and would be able to compete most years.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

If you're saying they lost/struggled against Cuse, they most definitely did. They also beat Bama by 28, and took down OSU twice in the CFP. And that 2019 OSU team was insane.

I agree with you to a degree - every really good team struggles at some point. We had close wins in both our years.

I also agree that those two Clemson teams were really good, especially the one that crushed Bama. Their DL was unreal, and Sunshine had a day. It's not my intent to take that away from Clemson.

What is obvious to me is that no matter who they played in the SEC it won't be close to their schedules in the new SEC/B1G. Not anywhere near close. Just look at my post today where there is one ACC team in the top 25 SOS pre-season. Meanwhile, 9 SEC teams are in the top 10. That will all come out in the wash, but you are way underestimating the difference between playing week in and week out in the ACC and then the new SEC/B1G.

If they want to win, they should stay in the ACC and work with the ACC to try to find out how to make more money. If they bail to the SEC/B1G there is a good chance they get back to the CFP once every 4 or 5 years. And, don't point at those teams 6, 7 years ago. Look at the teams in the last 3 years. That is where they are trending. There is nothing you can point at that would say they have a Clemson team of old - there is no generational QB, or dominating DL. In fact, at the LOS they have sucked. Their WRs have dropped off a cliff compared to those other Clemson teams.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

9-3 in the SEC gets you in the 12 team playoffs many years imo. Plus with that extra dough you likely have better players than 11-1 B12. I honestly don’t think anyone is saying ClemU/FSU is going to come in and win the whole thing yearly. Just that they deserve a seat at the table and would be able to compete most years.

It's funny, to get to this conclusion you have to assume the Clemson of 2016-2018 comes back, and the FSU of 2023 is what they will be. I would bet they will be more likely to be the more mediocre versions of their teams, not the top versions.

Time will tell ... I just think if I wanted to compete, being in an easier conference has some pros to it that everyone seems to be missing.

 

[ralphiewvu]

It's funny, to get to this conclusion you have to assume the Clemson of 2016-2018 comes back, and the FSU of 2023 is what they will be. I would bet they will be more likely to be the more mediocre versions of their teams, not the top versions.

Time will tell ... I just think if I wanted to compete, being in an easier conference has some pros to it that everyone seems to be missing.

Maybe a fair point on Clemson. They seemed to have been trending down (not horribly but down) in the last few years. I believe FSU though would be able to compete most years though. Again not win but be up there (top 5) of SEC.

The pros in remaining in the ACC don’t come close to just one pro of being in the SEC getting paid. Again I understand it’s an easy way to make the CFP in comparison but who knows how long the ACC and conferences like them (B12) I’ll have a seat at the table.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Maybe a fair point on Clemson. They seemed to have been trending down (not horribly but down) in the last few years. I believe FSU though would be able to compete most years though. Again not win but be up there (top 5) of SEC.

The pros in remaining in the ACC don’t come close to just one pro of being in the SEC getting paid. Again I understand it’s an easy way to make the CFP in comparison but who knows how long the ACC and conferences like them (B12) I’ll have a seat at the table.

The reason I am not bullish on FSU is that they won with unprecedented luck in the portal. Each of the 9 players they picked up had career years. That isn't going to happen all the time. And while their high school recruiting is better, it isn't where it needs to be - consistent top 3-5 or better. I need to see the rack up some top high school classes for four years in a row before I see them getting back to perennial power.

 

[ericd7633]

I am not sure you understand how the schedule worked and now works.

Here is what every team in the east played, except themselves:

UGA, UF, UTjr, USCjr, Ky, Vandy, Mizzou - every year. In addition to that they played 1 regular West team, and 1 West team every 6 years. That means that unless they played them every year, they played Bama, LSU, ATM, Auburn and Ole Miss once every 6 years.

Now, unless they get the annually, they play Bama, LSU, UGA, ATM, Auburn, UTjr, twice every four years.

I am leaving out OU and TX as this is a comparison of SECE and SECW.

Every team in the SECE had their schedule get more difficult. Instead of getting Bama, LSU, ATM, and Ole Miss every 6 years, they get them every other year. And they still get UGA, UF, and UTjr every other year.

What's more difficult in a 6 year period?

6 UGA
1 Bama
1 LSU
1 OM
1 ATM
1 Auburn
6 UF
6 UTjr

or

3 UGA
3 Bama
3 LSU
3 OM
3 ATM
3 Auburn
3 UF
3 UTjr

Christ man, you don't think I knew how the schedules worked? Lmao. UGA is off the schedule yearly. UGA is the best program in the sport currently, and with Saban leaving Bama who knows what they will be. Even with OU and Bama on their schedule, it's still easier this year than it was last year.

 

[ericd7633]

I agree with you to a degree - every really good team struggles at some point. We had close wins in both our years.

I also agree that those two Clemson teams were really good, especially the one that crushed Bama. Their DL was unreal, and Sunshine had a day. It's not my intent to take that away from Clemson.

What is obvious to me is that no matter who they played in the SEC it won't be close to their schedules in the new SEC/B1G. Not anywhere near close. Just look at my post today where there is one ACC team in the top 25 SOS pre-season. Meanwhile, 9 SEC teams are in the top 10. That will all come out in the wash, but you are way underestimating the difference between playing week in and week out in the ACC and then the new SEC/B1G.

If they want to win, they should stay in the ACC and work with the ACC to try to find out how to make more money. If they bail to the SEC/B1G there is a good chance they get back to the CFP once every 4 or 5 years. And, don't point at those teams 6, 7 years ago. Look at the teams in the last 3 years. That is where they are trending. There is nothing you can point at that would say they have a Clemson team of old - there is no generational QB, or dominating DL. In fact, at the LOS they have sucked. Their WRs have dropped off a cliff compared to those other Clemson teams.

I'm not underestimating the ACC. The conference isn't good, and was way behind the SEC in the CFP era. Hell ND won something like 31 regular seasons games in a row against the ACC until losing to UL last year. You're underestimating how good those Clemson teams were. If they would have shown up and got blown out, like ND and OU(for the most part) you'd have a better point. But they took down Bama and OSU twice. And blew each of them once.

 

[ralphiewvu]

The reason I am not bullish on FSU is that they won with unprecedented luck in the portal. Each of the 9 players they picked up had career years. That isn't going to happen all the time. And while their high school recruiting is better, it isn't where it needs to be - consistent top 3-5 or better. I need to see the rack up some top high school classes for four years in a row before I see them getting back to perennial power.

I think they could do that being in the SEC. Hell Norvell has done better in rankings each year for the past 4 years. I think a few years in the SEC could only help that. But I honestly could see FSU getting an invite to the B1G. Just depends if they can get a buddy the B1G wants. (UNC)

 

[Deep Creek]

I understand what you mean but at the end of the day any team outside the P2 is taking a P2 invite and all that money as they should. Especially since it's now legal for schools to pay players. The cost of wins some seasons is a small price to pay to remain relevant. I'm serious when I say I'd rather be 9-3 with an SEC schedule (and that conference payout) then 11-1 in the B12 (and that conference payout).

I'd venture to say every single team not in the P2 (except ND maybe the Academies) would be willing to give up 12-0 or 0-12 seasons in their current conferences in exchange for a B1G or SEC paycheck.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I'd venture to say every single team not in the P2 (except ND maybe the Academies) would be willing to give up 12-0 or 0-12 seasons in their current conferences in exchange for a B1G or SEC paycheck.

I wanted to say that, but0-12 every season is tough. Still you make a great point because of the compensation.

 

[Deep Creek]

They will say they will take the $50 million and regularly win the SEC/B1G because that is who they are. But there isn't anything we can look at that would say that's true.

If they say that they are nuts. But they'd be just as good or better than 50-60% of the teams in the B1G or SEC.

 

[Deep Creek]

I wanted to say that, but0-12 every season is tough. Still you make a great point because of the compensation.

Tell me about it. My Miners go 0-12 regularly and don't get near that much money. And it doesn't seem to bother Vandy to cash the checks.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Tell me about it. My Miners go 0-12 regularly and don't get near that much money. And it doesn't seem to bother Vandy to cash the checks.

Haha nah. But we are about to be in the same boat compensation wise.

 

[Deep Creek]

It's funny, to get to this conclusion you have to assume the Clemson of 2016-2018 comes back, and the FSU of 2023 is what they will be. I would bet they will be more likely to be the more mediocre versions of their teams, not the top versions.

Time will tell ... I just think if I wanted to compete, being in an easier conference has some pros to it that everyone seems to be missing.

No doubt there are pros to being in an easier conference. The question becomes is it worth giving up the revenue difference to stay in that easier conference. Oklahoma dominated the easier path in the Big 12. They were willing to give up that dominance in a heartbeat in order to move. UCLA, Maryland, Rutgers, etal didn't even dominate and they were willing to give it up for the money.

 

[Deep Creek]

Haha nah. But we are about to be in the same boat compensation wise.

So is everyone outside the P2 except those pesky Irish.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Christ man, you don't think I knew how the schedules worked? Lmao. UGA is off the schedule yearly. UGA is the best program in the sport currently, and with Saban leaving Bama who knows what they will be. Even with OU and Bama on their schedule, it's still easier this year than it was last year.

Your response indicates you don't. The second schedule I listed is far more difficult than the first.
What's more difficult in a 6 year period?

6 UGA
1 Bama
1 LSU
1 OM
1 ATM
1 Auburn
6 UF
6 UTjr

or

3 UGA
3 Bama
3 LSU
3 OM
3 ATM
3 Auburn
3 UF
3 UTjr

Sure, UGA is a high probability loss. But they only have 3 times the likelihood of losses to Bama and LSU, and then OM/ATM/Auburn are way better than any team in the east.