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.
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 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?
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.
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
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.
Hard to tell, but it seems that you are right and that it is not the biggest factor. I stand corrected.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.
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.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.
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 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.
I agree that it is poor coaching, 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.
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.
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.
It is great for UL to rise to prominence and your football team is fun to watch. Your success is wonderful for ACC's reputation. So, of course, ACC makes sure that you are in the same division as FSU AND Clemson.
Go figure.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That has nothing to do with Miami, which was the point of the discussion.
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.
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.
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.
Watch this guy. His goalposts are on wheels...No it wasn't...
Watch this guy. His goalposts are on wheels...
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.
LOL! Put your man-member back in your pants......Sorry, you're wrong again, as usual. But go ahead, jump in let me destroy you, like I did in previous arguments.
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.
LOL! Put your man-member back in your pants...
Explain to everyone else how this was on topic, what was my word(?), a$$hat......go ahead, jump in let me destroy you, like I did in previous arguments.
I think they just threw us in where Maryland had been. Maybe they will tweak the divisions sooner than later since we have been mostly a good edition in most sports. We have governor, board(s,president, and former basketball player/employee problems. Otherwise we are good. EllenIt is great for UL to rise to prominence and your football team is fun to watch. Your success is wonderful for ACC's reputation. So, of course, ACC makes sure that you are in the same division as FSU AND Clemson.
Go figure.
Explain to everyone else how this was on topic, what was my word(?), a$$hat...
Watch this guy. His goalposts are on wheels...