ACC Perception

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

I don't intend for this to be a swipe at any particular school but rather a discussion provoking question:

Why is it that the reaction of the national media in the immediate aftermath of NC State's upset win over #3 Florida State (see ESPN's CFB-related columns from Sunday Oct. 7) is that it "knocks the ACC back out of national relevance" (I may be paraphrasing, but was the general idea), rather than just being about a group of kids not being as big, fast, talented, or "relevant" as their highly ("over"?) rated opponent coming together, believing in themselves and each other, and simply winning a football game?

If it's Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, or Miami doing good then all is right with the world; otherwise, if it's anybody else in the ACC getting the job done the league as a whole just plain sucks. Well that's just great. Just like in basketball lately, the ESPN-hype fed BeeEssometer leads the entire sports-viewing population to blindly believe if it ain't UNC or Duke, then it just "ain't". Until the SEC starts having to play on a level plain with everybody else, no school outside the SEC with VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS is truly "relevant" in college football. Just wondering when it got to the point that unless you're "in the mix" for a national title you're worthless. Kind of frustrating to read multiple articles that talk about how bad Florida State mucked it up Saturday night and read none that talk about how good of a job NC State did of hanging in with FSU's defensive line while having to play a patchwork O-Line themselves. Oh well. Great job, Pack. Thoroughly enjoyed being there Saturday night. Great game, I thought, by both sides.

[Ken D]

I get what you're saying, Marty. But I've come to the sad conclusion that this reflects a not very pretty aspect of the American psyche. I call it the "We're #1 syndrome".

I don't think we value excellence - just winning. Only #1 has value, and there can only be one #1. Everybody else must be a loser. That is why, when there were two professional football leagues, we just had to have a Super Bowl. There was no room for two teams to be #1.

It is why we clamor for a playoff in college football. Why we had to have a BCS. Somebody has to be crowned #1, and for it to count, every other pretender to the throne must be vanquished. So "relevance" is defined as still being in the chase for #1. It sucks, but it is what it is.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

Agreed - and, I'm one of those you speak of who wants a "playoff" in D-I football. The issue I have is not the "perception" that every team except the champion "sucks" (a ridiculous notion on numerous fronts), it's with the "perception" that a conference as a whole "sucks" unless a select few schools in the given sport in question are serious contenders for a championship. College sports at their very core are cyclical in nature, then add in the whole "going pro" thing and you've got even greater than normal turnover of players on teams, especially in football and basketball.

My point is, applying the national media's logic after the State-FSU football game, last season's Kansas Jayhawks basketball team "lost" the title game to an even more stacked Kentucky team. IF Kansas had won, would the SEC have "sucked" as a conference (separate issue of "Kentucky-vs- the field" in SEC basketball)? No. IF, lo and behold, Team Fill-In-The-Blank from the Any Hot Other League Extraordinaire had won the football championship, would the SEC have "sucked" as a conference? No because they're playing with house money after winning the last several? No because they're better still top-to-bottom than every other conference? Or yes because they simply did not win the title?

The ironic part of it to me is that the ACC only sucked after a possibly overrated team lost a road game against a conference school with a pretty damn good track record against them in conference play. I'd be curious to know if any other ACC school has beaten FSU more than NC State since FSU joined the league. I know that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I agree with the point Joe Ovies was making on the radio yesterday afternoon: NC State fan doesn't give a damn about the perception of the ACC right now, we just care that our team won its last game. Period. Should NC State (and every other school not named Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, and Miami) just lay down in these "big" games in order to preserve and protect whatever national "respect" the ACC has? Screw that. Same thing with basketball - I'd rather compete with, and beat, UNC and Duke than feel all warm and fuzzy because my school is a member of the ACC and, gosh-darn it, Dickie V and the other talking heads can barely pull themselves away from self-abuse marathons long enough to tell us all JUST ONE MORE TIME how super, scintillating, sensational, spectacular, sweet, sexy, and superlative those two programs are. The only way to change that is to win, but then when that happens it doesn't mean the whole, entire conference is weakened - it means it's even stronger than before.

[Ken D]

I don't believe I said that every other team but the champion sucks. I said they are losers.

I also think that the perception that the ACC sucks in football (relative to the four power conferences) is not because our champion isn't as good as other leagues' champions. It's because we are weaker top to bottom, and we prove it year after year in inter-conference play. Over the past three seasons (2010-2012) we have won just under half our games against FBS opponents (52-53). Against the other five BCS AQ conferences, we are 20-38 (.344). Our bowl performance has been pitiful as well. I don't have the data for earlier years readily at hand, but I doubt they would be much different.

I don't think commentators are saying the ACC wouldn't suck if FSU had remained unbeaten and played in the BCS championship game. We would still suck - but at least we would have one team nationally relevant, and that's what their national audience wants to hear about. As for Kentucky basketball, I don't hear many people rating the SEC's strength based on Kentucky. The SEC in basketball is very much like the ACC in football. They are still one of the top six conferences, but they are near the bottom of that list.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

Ken,

I know, and I agree with you. I'm only questioning the "perception" itself.

[Ken D]

Speaking of perceptions, the SEC is perceived to be the strongest conference. So far this year, they are second to the Big XII in non-conference winning %age against other FBS conferences. The Big XII has won 85% compared with the SEC's 77%. But a closer look is more revealing. The SEC's five losses (by its weak sisters, Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, Auburn and Arkansas) have been to teams with a combined won-loss record of 27-4 (87%). All those teams are in other AQ conferences.

So I guess, for this year at least, that perception is pretty valid.

[mattncsu02]

I'm one of those Pack fans that could care less what the talking heads on TV think, I'm just tickled about the win!