ACC are idiots
- Thread starter NolesReload
- Start date
Miami, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, North Carolina and Georgia Tech all have college football history behind them, these programs just need to get back to where they once were. That division could/should be as competitive as our side.
I wonder why the SEC is aligned the same way. Did they do that to make sure the top teams play each other every year in order to boost TV revenue?
History is great, but in modern times, Miami has the only chance to build and sustain success. Their local recruiting base is off the charts, but ever since UM joined the ACC, they have not been able to recruit partial qualifiers and you have seen what happened to their program.
Pitt, GT(gimmick offense), UNC(recruits against 4 instate schools) can pop up with success from time to time, but it is not sustainable long term.
At least their divisions are somewhat geographically based, ensuring better rivalries and attendance. SEC is praying that some team in the East rises up with UT, UGA almost being exposed while UF is a paper tiger.
I really enjoy having the Noles and Tigers on the schedule every year. If anyone has a legit complaint, it's probably the other four teams in the Atlantic Division.
The only alignment/schedule issue I have, like many others do, is how seldom we cycle through the teams in the Coastal. I'd favor a way to fix that...
The only alignment/schedule issue I have, like many others do, is how seldom we cycle through the teams in the Coastal. I'd favor a way to fix that...
SEC and Big 10+4 did regional divisions.
If the ACC did this, it would look like Old Big East vs. Old ACC... sort of like
North: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, VT, UVa, UNC
South: NC State, Duke, Wake, GT, Clemson, FSU, Miami
The partial qualifiers tack is a myth and one that was used against U of L, too. It doesn't carry water in the least.
I kind of like that, but you would have to trade Miami (South New York) with UNC. The Tobacco Road mafia would not allow it. Personally, I would go see more road games as I live in ATL.
Miami did tighten up academic standards after all the trouble caused from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. They mentioned something about it on the 30 for 30 "The U" parts 1 and 2.
Yeah, I should have put Miami in the North. UVa would be the odd man out joining all the former Big East schools.
Hard to tell, but it seems that you are right and that it is not the biggest factor. I stand corrected.
Miami has the best chance IMO to get back to at least close to their glory days under Richt and the fact of where they are located. Va Tech has a chance due to their rabid fan base but the Beamer era will be hard to duplicate.
Pittsburgh has a chance if they can quit being a warmup job and get Narduzzi to stay. UNC has recruited well over the years but haven't been able to win big games since Mack Brown left in the 90s.
Georgia Tech seems to have gone as far as they are going to under Paul Johnson. The days of Bobby Ross and then the George O'leary and Ralph Friedgen duo seem like a long time ago.
Cutcliffe doesn't get near enough credit for the job he's done at Duke but like Wake Forest, the Blue Devils are never going to be a football power.
I disagree. Although the term "partial qualifier" no longer applies (you either fully qualify or you don't), CUSA allowed "partial qualifiers" back when we were members of that conference, and we had a few on our team. Kurt Quarterman was one, as was Otis Floyd.
CUSA actually allows them still to this day, although the term "partial qualifier" no longer applies. The Big East did allow them back when Miami was a member, but the Big East changed that rule a year or two after UofL joined the conference.
There is little doubt that Marshall will have a few "non-qualifiers" on their roster when we play them in two weeks.
It's called a grayshirt and every P5 team does whatever it can do to ameliorate the "partial qualifier" aspect of it and then the kid, with resources, either comes to snuff or doesn't.
If you really want to measure such a thing (I don't, really), then you look at how many JuCo transfers a school accepts (e.g. it's the other route by which a "partial qualifier" can later re-integrate into top level).
At any rate, it is NOT the reason for Miami's relative decline (or a determinant in their ability to return to the Top 10). For example, if Bridgewater (a good student) had signed with the 'Canes they might be perceived a bit differently right now.
If you really want to measure such a thing (I don't, really), then you look at how many JuCo transfers a school accepts (e.g. it's the other route by which a "partial qualifier" can later re-integrate into top level).
At any rate, it is NOT the reason for Miami's relative decline (or a determinant in their ability to return to the Top 10). For example, if Bridgewater (a good student) had signed with the 'Canes they might be perceived a bit differently right now.
I agree that it is poor coaching that has primarily led to Miami's decline, but grayshirt, redshirt, and blueshirt are all different than the academic "non-qualifier".
An academic non-qualifier does not qualify in one of two ways - either they do not have the required GPA in core classes or they didn't make a qualifying test score (or both).
Schools in CUSA are allowed to offer a limited number of academic non-qualifiers scholarships - so those student athletes sign a National Letter of Intent (NLI) and accept the scholarship but do not play their first year while they attempt to earn enough credits and post the required GPA in order to be eligible to play as a sophomore.
To explain the difference, a grayshirt is a student athlete who is a full qualifier, signs a NLI with a school, but defers enrolling until January of the following year.
A redshirt is widely understood - a full qualifier who joins the program in August and does not play during the first year.
A blue shirt is a student athlete who is a full qualifier who signs an NLI with a school but pays his own way for his first year, with the understanding that a scholarship will be made available for him after the first year once one becomes available.
Can you weigh in on the assertion that Miami's decline is in full or part due to the transition from "partial qualifiers" to the new terminology? Maybe "poor coaching" was meant to cover that but I'm unsure if it does? I'd be more certain of how to update my data banks if I knew your answer to the original context! Thanks.
The FSU fan is correct that Miami was a member of a Big East that allowed partial qualifiers until they joined the ACC in 2005. Exactly how many partial qualifiers Miami accepted is unknown to me. Perhaps the FSU poster knows of the names of a few prominent Miami players who were partial qualifiers?
It is my opinion that Miami's decline is primarily due to poor coaching hires and two NCAA probations - Larry Coker, Randy Shannon and Al Golden all turned out to be poor choices. But it is undeniable that Miami has failed to win the ACC since joining the conference, and that timeframe coincides with the same timeframe that they have been required not to accept partial or non-qualifiers into their program. It is at least a contributing factor.
Bad coaching hires, NCAA scandals are good reasons for the U's decline. I also I think a toning down of that 'Cane Thing' culture by the administration, especially by President Albright(former U.S. Sec'y of State) has been at play. The last NCAA episode definitely so. But no reason they couldn't come back with the backyard talent, just need to keep the thug boosters and players out.
Geography and Culture.
Northeast "National Championship" FB is never coming back to a city school, Pitt, or the Cuse. An inadequate blimp dome and an NFL playground tell that story. Dominated by the NFL, less HS talent and Mom's who like Soccer and LaCrosse…..( I won't even mention the longtime State FB Powerhouse in N.J.). Only PSU in the B1G has survived, up until the shower with kids stuff, and even they haven't been at the top for awhile. Further, a Lotta Soccer, LaCrosse Moms in N.C., too. Wake and GT (except in '91), nuff said. And before you mention the snowy, B1G region, it's Midwest with huge State Universities.
But better coaching and recruiting where it doesn't snow will make you more competitive.
Geography and Culture.
Northeast "National Championship" FB is never coming back to a city school, Pitt, or the Cuse. An inadequate blimp dome and an NFL playground tell that story. Dominated by the NFL, less HS talent and Mom's who like Soccer and LaCrosse…..( I won't even mention the longtime State FB Powerhouse in N.J.). Only PSU in the B1G has survived, up until the shower with kids stuff, and even they haven't been at the top for awhile. Further, a Lotta Soccer, LaCrosse Moms in N.C., too. Wake and GT (except in '91), nuff said. And before you mention the snowy, B1G region, it's Midwest with huge State Universities.
But better coaching and recruiting where it doesn't snow will make you more competitive.
I think you are referring to former Miami President Donna Shalala, who was the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bill Clinton.
There are no longer "partial qualifiers". Miami recruits at exactly the same NCAA rules that we all do including all $ec schools. Now the academic side of UM is above the charts. My grandson is a scholarship student there and UM is one of the top academic "public" universities in the USA. Even though it is a private school there are some public dollars that go to UM. Not much but some.
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
The ACC didn't make sure of anything. Maryland left, and the logical option was to put Louisville in Maryland's slot, which was in the Atlantic. If you don't like the alignment of the divisions period, it's because Florida St and Miami wanted to be in separate divisions. That's the underlying factor.
No, but it worked out that way.
That would come under "spurious correlation."
Since the Clemson Tigers did not play UofL during the timeframe when we had a number of partial qualifiers on our roster, it is predictable that you would consider the correlation spurious. Had you played us at any time during the stretch of 2000-2006, you would likely think differently. In 2002 FSU won an ACC championship but lost to the least successful UofL team during those years.
That has nothing to do with Miami, which was the point of the discussion. However, let me go ahead and eviscerate your argument. Miami, was "Miami" in the 80s/early 90s. Then, from 1993-1999 they had only one 10-win season, and were 1-6 against Florida St. So, where was all the "partial qualifier" magic then? What was the problem? Well, the problem was a coaching change plus NCAA sanctions, same thing as happened in the 2000s.
Now, to your point about Louisville, let's examine that further. In 2000 (within your timeframe), Florida St played a much better Louisville team (9-3), and beat them 31-0. Again I ask, where was all the partial qualifier magic?
Oh, and I would also add this. Virginia Tech won 4 ACC titles in 8 years. Boston College won 2 division titles in 4 years. Well, coming from the Big East (which allowed partial qualifiers) into the ACC (which didn't), that should have affected those schools as well. However, it obviously didn't, as both were much more successful than Miami in the ACC. Partial qualifiers simply don't explain Miami's problems.
Last edited:
Why not? Miami has not had a double digit win season since they lost the ability to play the partial qualifiers. There are other factors to be sure...increased poaching of Dade County recruits, coaching turnover, etc. But it is interesting that Miami, who rampaged through the Big East using partial qualifiers, has not won their division in the ACC...nor had a double digit win season.
Nebraska, in it's last bowl before the Big 12 changed their rule on partial qualifiers...had 12 partial qualifiers, 4 starters and another two who played as much as the starters. Just prior to the rule change, Nebraska had one loss spread over three seasons.
There are other factors that impact and it may be difficult to isolate the loss of partial qualifiers, but I have no doubt that it had an effect.
No, the point (or the tangent provided by the FSU poster) was the effect of partial qualifiers and their ability to enhance a roster.
I have already said (twice now) that I believe poor coaching hires and NCAA sanctions were the primary reasons why the Miami program has suffered. Another problem that I have not stated before is game day atmosphere - Miami has to play their football games 30 miles away from campus. Miami just has a number of problems that are currently causing the program to struggle.
So of course partial qualifiers are not the primary reason why Miami has had problems. I simply pointed out that it should not be dismissed as a contributing factor, for the reasons I have already stated.
In 2000, Louisville wasn't the first good team to go into Florida State and lose by thirty one points, and they won't be the last. We had our revenge, however.
Having been to the Orange Bowl (at Miami Gardens) I agree that it is a sterile island with almost literally no atmosphere and that probably is an obstacle.
I used to have a link (temporarily misplaced) in which Coach Schnellenberger urged The U to acquire a parcel of land near (or was it contiguous or nearly contiguous?) to the campus and build a new stadium. They did not follow his urging. And they are a land-locked campus. I believe the article also stated that the parcel was subsequently developed and the opportunity is no more. It also cited this as one of the reasons CHS departed (although he departed a lot of places).
It makes you realize how fortunate U of L has been to acquire both the American Standard property west of 4th St, and a number of parcels south of Eastern Parkway including the massive L&N yard that PJCS sits on.
Pitt has similar issues playing at Heinz (although that worked out nicely for the Penn State game since between the two of them they filled it up). Makes it hard to feel you're part of something inevitable, exciting when you're in a half-full NFL stadium though.
I used to have a link (temporarily misplaced) in which Coach Schnellenberger urged The U to acquire a parcel of land near (or was it contiguous or nearly contiguous?) to the campus and build a new stadium. They did not follow his urging. And they are a land-locked campus. I believe the article also stated that the parcel was subsequently developed and the opportunity is no more. It also cited this as one of the reasons CHS departed (although he departed a lot of places).
It makes you realize how fortunate U of L has been to acquire both the American Standard property west of 4th St, and a number of parcels south of Eastern Parkway including the massive L&N yard that PJCS sits on.
Pitt has similar issues playing at Heinz (although that worked out nicely for the Penn State game since between the two of them they filled it up). Makes it hard to feel you're part of something inevitable, exciting when you're in a half-full NFL stadium though.
Because of all the other factors listed in this thread including the ones you listed. Mitigating factor? OK, I'll concede it might be a mitigating factor but IMO (and it's only an opinion) it is far from the primary cause.
No it wasn't. The FSU poster was specifically talking about Miami. He wasn't making a general statement about partial qualifiers. The only reason he brought up partial qualifiers was in relation to Miami. He was claiming that was why Miami fell off after joining the ACC, because they couldn't take partial qualifiers. I was pointing out that this theory doesn't hold up. The success Virginia Tech and Boston College had when moving to the ACC dismisses the notion that partial qualifiers contributed to Miami's lack of success.
Regarding Louisville, I wasn't knocking Louisville. I was pointing out how your 2002 example didn't prove anything about partial qualifiers.
Once again (not that I'm counting, but this is the third time now I've said this), I wasn't trying to prove anything about partial qualifiers, because no proof is needed. What you are doing by allowing the option of partial qualifiers is to give a coach one more way of adding a talented player to his roster. To make a simple example ... if there are five ways to add a player to the roster in the ACC, CUSA schools have six ways. By attempting to argue that it has no effect, you are effectively attempting to say that six is not greater than five. It's silly to even attempt to debate it.
My point was that there is a correlation (as previously described), and that the effect of partial qualifiers on the Miami roster (as it was on the UofL roster) cannot be dismissed as a contributing factor to Miami's struggles. Quit trying to argue that 6 is not greater than 5.
It's fair to say that P5 teams have many, many more advantages (not the least of which is bigger conference payouts and the bigger budgets that go with that.) that easily offset whatever impact qualifications have. I'm pretty sure there's no one in this thread that believes otherwise.
Read this post, and tell me the point is not about Miami:
Sorry, you're wrong again, as usual. But go ahead, jump in let me destroy you, like I did in previous arguments.
Yes, it can be dismissed. If that was the case, then Virginia Tech and Boston College would not have had success in the ACC either, but they did. Louisville would not have success in the ACC, but they have. Plus, Miami also struggled in the 90s in the Big East, where they did have partial qualifiers. So yes, partial qualifiers can be dismissed as a factor to Miami's struggles.
LOL! Put your man-member back in your pants...
Typical, a comeback lacking wit, and also completely avoiding the issue up for discussion.
Explain to everyone else how this was on topic, what was my word(?), a$$hat...
I think they just threw us in where Maryland had been. Maybe they will tweak the divisions sooner than later since we have been mostly a good edition in most sports. We have governor, board(s,president, and former basketball player/employee problems. Otherwise we are good. Ellen
Talk about something not being on topic:
You still can't refute my original point. You just ignored it (which was on topic), and started talking about me (which wasn't the topic).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Suggestion for Ty ... pin a basketball roster over here
- Latest: Cardiac Red