OT: D1

[ctrabs74]

I'm not really sure you are objectively looking at the Pat Narduzzi tenure or Pitt's time in the ACC. Since they've been in the conference, they have won the 3rd most games in the ACC behind only Clemson and Florida State. They are the only school not named Clemson or Florida State to win the conference since 2011, and they did that by beating Clemson in the regular season to get to Charlotte. Tougher now with Saturday's loss, but they are still in conversation to reach the ACC Championship game for the 3rd time in 6 years. I'm not sure what you are looking for pertaining to consistency.

2022 wasn't a down year. They had two horrendous losses in consecutive weeks (one in a monsoon to Georgia Tech and the other at Louisville). They won a bowl game over a good UCLA team and finished the season ranked. They could have done more had they not lost those two games in October, but oh well. They won 20 games in two years. They were one of only 4 programs to do that in that stretch. 2023 was a disaster because of a number of things, but start at the QB position.

It's really hard to be "consistent" in the way that you are talking about. 90-95% of college programs cannot just go out and win 10 games every year. It's extremely hard to do that. The 5-10% of schools that do are the ones who get top 10 recruiting classes every season and have the money to buy players off rosters to plug holes. Pitt is not that type of program - and they never will be.

Nobody on this board is more invested or interested in Pitt football than I am. I have had season tickets for years. I believe they should be winning 8 games every year as the floor and you have your build up season every couple of years to get to 10 wins. It is grossly unfair of me to expect them to win 10 games annually in this era of college football.

I think a lot of the narrative is that people are still clinging to the great 1970s-era Panthers teams including that national championship team in 1979. I do wonder how Pitt would have fared if they were in a different conference, but when you look at the Alabamas and Ohio States of college football, it's hard not to be envious of their success while wondering what Pitt has to do to reach that level, or even reach Penn State's level.

[IUP24]

Boston College has "trap game" written all over it, though SMU will have a week off ahead of their Nov. 16 rematch of last year's Fenway Bowl. SMU then travels to Virginia and closes out the season at home against Cal (Comma) Berkeley. On paper, SMU should win all three, but they don't play games on paper. Just ask Clemson...

I'm not sure Clemson is a great example of the "games on paper" analogy if you are thinking back to last week. Louisville is a really good football team. They took Miami to the brink. Louisville also recruits extremely well and Jeff Brohm is a good coach. They have 3 losses all by one possession to SMU, Notre Dame, and Miami. All 3 teams likely make the College Football Playoff based on how things currently look. If they win one of those games they are 7-2 and probably ranked in the top 15.

[Ship69]

SMU is a really good team. It's unfortunate that the ACC doesn't get any traction nationally from a respect or perception angle. It's a strong conference. I tend to look at Miami having close games as a sign that it's a competitive league, not that Miami is a weak team. Miami should have lost to VT and Cal, but survived. Louisville was right there with Miami until a missed holding call on a long TD pass swung the game in the 4th quarter. That same Louisville team went out and won on the road against a Clemson team that was humming along. SMU played a tight game against Duke, and for what it's worth, that same Duke team gave Miami everything it could handle for 3.5 quarters. Cal took both Pitt and Miami to the brink. There is a strong level of competition within the conference.

This is not at all making this a Pitt/Penn State comparison, rather to look at the perception angle regarding how the ACC is viewed versus, say, the Big Ten. Pitt's win over Syracuse would be Penn State's best win on their schedule. B1G fans can't point to the Illinois win anymore as a data point because they have 4 losses now. They can't point to USC either, as they are below .500. So find me a better win on their schedule. I think it's so unfair to blindly say that the ACC is such an inferior league compared to the others. I'll agree that the top 4 teams in the B1G and SEC are better programs, but the bottom and the middle tiers of those conferences are not - they are all on equal footing. And with these expanded conferences and watered down schedules, you don't have to play all the top teams anymore. Indiana is a fun story for many (especially here), but I'm not entirely sure they've played anybody challenging either. Is Nebraska or Michigan State a good team? I'm not really sure that either are. Neither of those wins are any better than somebody in the ACC beating Virginia Tech or Cal.

I say all that to say that its unfortunate that these schools in the ACC and Big 12 have zero margin for error, because I truly believe all of these conferences are closer than many will ever care to believe.

USC beat LSU, and Nebraska easily handled Colorado, so I'm not sure how those would be worse wins than beating Virginia Tech or Cal. In an average year, especially with the new alignment, I'll take the B1G over the ACC in football any day of the week. Duke was very fortunate to beat Northwestern, one of the worst teams in the B1G this year.

[IUP24]

USC beat LSU, and Nebraska easily handled Colorado, so I'm not sure how those would be worse wins than beating Virginia Tech or Cal. In an average year, especially with the new alignment, I'll take the B1G over the ACC in football any day of the week. Duke was very fortunate to beat Northwestern, one of the worst teams in the B1G this year.

Things change throughout the year. And as those change, so too do your data points. Nobody can use USC or Illinois as strong wins anymore from a resume conversation. Nebraska turned out to be not so good after all. And Colorado turned out to be good when it was assumed they wouldn't be.

To say that teams from the ACC or Big 12 couldn't line up against a murderers row of Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers, Northwestern, UCLA, Nebraska, and Michigan State is just not a realistic statement. I know that's not what you stated, but you see the point. The separation of these conferences simply is not as significant as many claim it to be - even with expansion. It's certainly not enough to warrant 8 of 12 CFP bids going to teams from the B1G and SEC, which the decision makers of those two leagues are clamoring for.

[IUP24]

USC beat LSU, and Nebraska easily handled Colorado, so I'm not sure how those would be worse wins than beating Virginia Tech or Cal. In an average year, especially with the new alignment, I'll take the B1G over the ACC in football any day of the week. Duke was very fortunate to beat Northwestern, one of the worst teams in the B1G this year.

Penn State was also fortunate to beat USC, one of the worst teams in the B1G this year.

[IUP24]

USC beat LSU, and Nebraska easily handled Colorado, so I'm not sure how those would be worse wins than beating Virginia Tech or Cal. In an average year, especially with the new alignment, I'll take the B1G over the ACC in football any day of the week. Duke was very fortunate to beat Northwestern, one of the worst teams in the B1G this year.

Thinking more about this. I will agree that while the top of the B1G is better than the ACC, but there's not really any hard evidence to support that being true.

Using the methodology you provided regarding conference strength by margin of victory...

Oregon almost lost to Idaho and should have lost to Boise State. Ohio State lost to that same Oregon team, escaped against Nebraska, and played absolutely nobody out of conference. Penn State going down to Morgantown and slaughtering WVU is impressive, but so is Miami going into Gainesville and winning by 24 points. Other than beating each other up (and they don't all play each other in the regular season), what hard evidence is there to actually suggest that Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State, and Indiana are so much better than Miami, SMU, Clemson, and Pitt? Reality is that there isn't any.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Thinking more about this. I will agree that while the top of the B1G is better than the ACC, but there's not really any hard evidence to support that being true.

Using the methodology you provided regarding conference strength by margin of victory...

Oregon almost lost to Idaho and should have lost to Boise State. Ohio State lost to that same Oregon team, escaped against Nebraska, and played absolutely nobody out of conference. Penn State going down to Morgantown and slaughtering WVU is impressive, but so is Miami going into Gainesville and winning by 24 points. Other than beating each other up (and they don't all play each other in the regular season), what hard evidence is there to actually suggest that Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State, and Indiana are so much better than Miami, SMU, Clemson, and Pitt? Reality is that there isn't any.

TV ratings.

Follow the $$$

Networks don't want to see Pitt vs Boise State in the playoffs (example). They want Notre Dame vs Ohio State. Heck, they didn't even put Top 25 (at the time) Pitt vs SMU on network TV.

The 'perception' is the ACC is a clear step down from the BIG and SEC.

The human factor plays a huge part in all this -- and the influence provided from those writing the big TV checks goes a very long way.

I agree with you on Penn State's resume. But, if they are remotely close to a playoff team, that 'brand' is getting in.

[Fightingscot82]

TV ratings.

Follow the $$$

Networks don't want to see Pitt vs Boise State in the playoffs (example). They want Notre Dame vs Ohio State. Heck, they didn't even put Top 25 (at the time) Pitt vs SMU on network TV.

The 'perception' is the ACC is a clear step down from the BIG and SEC.

The human factor plays a huge part in all this -- and the influence provided from those writing the big TV checks goes a very long way.

I agree with you on Penn State's resume. But, if they are remotely close to a playoff team, that 'brand' is getting in.

Remember that ESPN owns and operates the ACC Network. So really, the game would have had to compete with whatever was on the ESPN/ABC network. Here's what Pitt-SMU was competing with:

ESPN: Louisville vs #11 Clemson
ESPN2: TCU vs Baylor
ESPNU: Georgia Southern vs South Alabama

ABC: #15 Texas A&M vs South Carolina

I think it should have been on ESPN2 if you're looking purely at national reach and top 25 rankings. BUT...TCU-Baylor is a huge, longstanding rivalry that would glue most of Texas not watching A&M lose to South Carolina. Pitt just isn't much of a national draw.

[IUP24]

TV ratings.

Follow the $$$

Networks don't want to see Pitt vs Boise State in the playoffs (example). They want Notre Dame vs Ohio State. Heck, they didn't even put Top 25 (at the time) Pitt vs SMU on network TV.

The 'perception' is the ACC is a clear step down from the BIG and SEC.

The human factor plays a huge part in all this -- and the influence provided from those writing the big TV checks goes a very long way.

I agree with you on Penn State's resume. But, if they are remotely close to a playoff team, that 'brand' is getting in.

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. It's all accurate. You are 100% right. Perception is all major college football is about.

Everybody clamored for the expanded playoff because they all "wanted everybody deserving to have a shot" and because they were all "tired of seeing the same teams." So when all this shakes out, what's really going to be different? The argument FOR the playoff was for teams like Pitt, SMU, Iowa State, BYU, Boise State, etc.. But when the rubber actually meets the road, all the pundits are just stumping for the same teams with the big brands.

• Why is SMU not in the Top 10? They are 8-1, have a bunch of blowouts, only lost by 5 to BYU.
• Why is Boise State not in the Top 10? Their only loss is to Oregon on the road by 3. They also own a 21 point win over the #20 team in the country
• Indiana is in the B1G sure, but they aren't a "brand." It took a bunch of losses in front of them to get them into the top 10.
• I don't believe Pitt will finish 11-1, but if they do, why should they be automatically discounted out in favor of an 11-1 or 10-2 team
• Looking at metrics and how things likely shake out, Iowa State's loss to Texas Tech positions the Big 12 to be a 1-bid league. They could end up have 2 teams which have 11 wins or better. In fact, that probably does happen. Only one will get in. But I bet Ohio State can lose to Indiana OR lose the B1G championship, have 2 losses, and get in over BYU or Iowa State with 1-loss.

The post I responded to was using margin of victory as a justification to indirectly indicate that one conference is stronger than the other. And yeah, you are right, the perception is that the ACC is a step down from the B1G and SEC, but that perception traditionally has nothing to do with football. Like I said, I will agree that the top 4 teams are probably better annually in the B1G or SEC, even though it's tough to "prove" that, as I discussed. That said, it's hard for me to even remotely agree that the top to bottom strength of any of these conferences overall is much different than the other. They all have a couple really good teams, a couple really bad teams, and a bunch of okay teams in the middle. Move them all around between conferences and they would all finish about the same.

To your point, they want particular matchups in the CFP. They want particular brands and programs in there too. In show business and entertainment, there's the old phrase of "sex sells." Well, in this world, "brand on brand" sells too.

This was always why I disagreed with the playoff expansion. This exact conversation. We're justifying why one league is better than the other, and everybody equates that to why 8 of 12 spots should come from two conferences. Everybody wanted "Cinderella." But those same people pound the table against potential bid stealers who could wear the glass slipper. You don't have to agree with every nut and bolt what I said here, but the overall message is something I think most can agree with (regardless of what conference your team is a member of).

[IUP24]

Remember that ESPN owns and operates the ACC Network. So really, the game would have had to compete with whatever was on the ESPN/ABC network. Here's what Pitt-SMU was competing with:

ESPN: Louisville vs #11 Clemson
ESPN2: TCU vs Baylor
ESPNU: Georgia Southern vs South Alabama

ABC: #15 Texas A&M vs South Carolina

I think it should have been on ESPN2 if you're looking purely at national reach and top 25 rankings. BUT...TCU-Baylor is a huge, longstanding rivalry that would glue most of Texas not watching A&M lose to South Carolina. Pitt just isn't much of a national draw.

I don't disagree with anything you said. Pitt's game against WVU drew 800,000 viewers. That was it. WVU fans talk up how strong of a fanbase they are, but extrapolating those numbers out, over 75% of their state didn't even tune in (assuming about half of that viewership was Pitt fans), which is funny considering the "our state against your neighborhood" moniker they use all the time.

My argument regarding how television works has always been this...

They select who will garner the best ratings. And generally, the biggest brands garner the best ratings. But if you continue to bury programs when they have actual opportunities to create national intrigue to potentially grow their brand, how can they ever be expected to become a bigger brand and get better ratings?

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. It's all accurate. You are 100% right. Perception is all major college football is about.

Everybody clamored for the expanded playoff because they all "wanted everybody deserving to have a shot" and because they were all "tired of seeing the same teams." So when all this shakes out, what's really going to be different? The argument FOR the playoff was for teams like Pitt, SMU, Iowa State, BYU, Boise State, etc.. But when the rubber actually meets the road, all the pundits are just stumping for the same teams with the big brands.

• Why is SMU not in the Top 10? They are 8-1, have a bunch of blowouts, only lost by 5 to BYU.
• Why is Boise State not in the Top 10? Their only loss is to Oregon on the road by 3. They also own a 21 point win over the #20 team in the country
• Indiana is in the B1G sure, but they aren't a "brand." It took a bunch of losses in front of them to get them into the top 10.
• I don't believe Pitt will finish 11-1, but if they do, why should they be automatically discounted out in favor of an 11-1 or 10-2 team
• Looking at metrics and how things likely shake out, Iowa State's loss to Texas Tech positions the Big 12 to be a 1-bid league. They could end up have 2 teams which have 11 wins or better. In fact, that probably does happen. Only one will get in. But I bet Ohio State can lose to Indiana OR lose the B1G championship, have 2 losses, and get in over BYU or Iowa State with 1-loss.

The post I responded to was using margin of victory as a justification to indirectly indicate that one conference is stronger than the other. And yeah, you are right, the perception is that the ACC is a step down from the B1G and SEC, but that perception traditionally has nothing to do with football. Like I said, I will agree that the top 4 teams are probably better annually in the B1G or SEC, even though it's tough to "prove" that, as I discussed. That said, it's hard for me to even remotely agree that the top to bottom strength of any of these conferences overall is much different than the other. They all have a couple really good teams, a couple really bad teams, and a bunch of okay teams in the middle. Move them all around between conferences and they would all finish about the same.

To your point, they want particular matchups in the CFP. They want particular brands and programs in there too. In show business and entertainment, there's the old phrase of "sex sells." Well, in this world, "brand on brand" sells too.

This was always why I disagreed with the playoff expansion. This exact conversation. We're justifying why one league is better than the other, and everybody equates that to why 8 of 12 spots should come from two conferences. Everybody wanted "Cinderella." But those same people pound the table against potential bid stealers who could wear the glass slipper. You don't have to agree with every nut and bolt what I said here, but the overall message is something I think most can agree with (regardless of what conference your team is a member of).

The fear obviously is Cinderella getting a huge stage against Georgia -- and losing by 49 points in a total snoozer that 80% of viewers turn off by halftime.

I'm not disagreeing with your comments. I do think it's going to be very difficult to get one of these 'perceived' lesser teams invited.

Clemson getting completely destroyed by Georgia didn't do the ACC any favors, either.

Personally, I don't even think Miami is that good. I think an Oregon or Georgia would blast them. But, they should finish undefeated so they are going to get their shot.

Pitt is 7-1. Do I think they'd be 7-1 playing an SEC schedule? Not a chance.

[IUP24]

The fear obviously is Cinderella getting a huge stage against Georgia -- and losing by 49 points in a total snoozer that 80% of viewers turn off by halftime.

I'm not disagreeing with your comments. I do think it's going to be very difficult to get one of these 'perceived' lesser teams invited.

Clemson getting completely destroyed by Georgia didn't do the ACC any favors, either.

Personally, I don't even think Miami is that good. I think an Oregon or Georgia would blast them. But, they should finish undefeated so they are going to get their shot.

Pitt is 7-1. Do I think they'd be 7-1 playing an SEC schedule? Not a chance.

Cherry picking the ACC has nothing to do with the larger conversation. MOST of those playoff games in the 4 team playoff were non-competitive football games. Michigan State got boat raced by Alabama, so did that hurt the Big Ten’s perception?

I’m not disagreeing what you’re saying - this is an enjoyable discussion, but there’s holes within the theory you are presenting. TCU got obliterated on the big stage. A lot of teams have gotten beaten badly. That same Clemson team that didn’t do the ACC any favors, laughed Ohio State off the field, 31-0. The B1G has been on the receiving end of more blowouts than the ACC in the College Football Playoff.

Again, I am not saying the ACC (or Big 12) is better than the other two. I just have never believed there was this massive separation that the media and causal fan puts out. They are mostly all the same.

Would Pitt or SMU, or Iowa State or BYU for that matter, be 7-1 in the SEC? I don’t know. But I can’t say that they wouldn’t. Kentucky isn’t good. Mississippi State and Auburn are two of the worst teams in P4 football. Oklahoma is a train wreck. An ACC school already dog walked the team in Gainesville. Much like you aren’t playing Ohio State or Oregon every week in the B1G, you aren’t playing Georgia and Tennessee every week either. I’m not of the mind that those teams are just inherently better because “it just means more.” But we can agree to disagree on that. That’s fine.

I am happy Curt is doing what he’s doing in Bloomington, but the teams I mentioned could have the same record playing that schedule. That’s not to diminish Indiana. It’s just to equate that Cal isn’t worse than Michigan State. Or Virginia Tech isn’t worse than Nebraska. Or that Louisville isn’t worse than Illinois. You see my point.

Personally, this is really good discussion. I enjoy these conversations. I just don’t think the separation between conferences is what many perceive it to be. And with that being my opinion, I yearn for a world where the size of the fanbase doesn’t increase your chances of playing for a national championship.

[Fightingscot82]

Cherry picking the ACC has nothing to do with the larger conversation. MOST of those playoff games in the 4 team playoff were non-competitive football games. Michigan State got boat raced by Alabama, so did that hurt the Big Ten’s perception?

I’m not disagreeing what you’re saying - this is an enjoyable discussion, but there’s holes within the theory you are presenting. TCU got obliterated on the big stage. A lot of teams have gotten beaten badly. That same Clemson team that didn’t do the ACC any favors, laughed Ohio State off the field, 31-0. The B1G has been on the receiving end of more blowouts than the ACC in the College Football Playoff.

Again, I am not saying the ACC (or Big 12) is better than the other two. I just have never believed there was this massive separation that the media and causal fan puts out. They are mostly all the same.

Would Pitt or SMU, or Iowa State or BYU for that matter, be 7-1 in the SEC? I don’t know. But I can’t say that they wouldn’t. Kentucky isn’t good. Mississippi State and Auburn are two of the worst teams in P4 football. Oklahoma is a train wreck. An ACC school already dog walked the team in Gainesville. Much like you aren’t playing Ohio State or Oregon every week in the B1G, you aren’t playing Georgia and Tennessee every week either. I’m not of the mind that those teams are just inherently better because “it just means more.” But we can agree to disagree on that. That’s fine.

I am happy Curt is doing what he’s doing in Bloomington, but the teams I mentioned could have the same record playing that schedule. That’s not to diminish Indiana. It’s just to equate that Cal isn’t worse than Michigan State. Or Virginia Tech isn’t worse than Nebraska. Or that Louisville isn’t worse than Illinois. You see my point.

Personally, this is really good discussion. I enjoy these conversations. I just don’t think the separation between conferences is what many perceive it to be. And with that being my opinion, I yearn for a world where the size of the fanbase doesn’t increase your chances of playing for a national championship.

Best part about the expanded playoff is that it forces games between very good to great teams in different conferences who would never play each other in the regular season.

For every blowout snoozer, that one upset and possible Cinderella team like an Indiana or Army or Southern Methodist makes it worth it.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Nov. 5 College Football Playoff rankings:

-

1	Oregon	9-0
2	Ohio State	7-1
3	Georgia	7-1
4	Miami	9-0
5	Texas	7-1
6	Penn State	7-1
7	Tennessee	7-1
8	Indiana	9-0
9	BYU	8-0
10	Notre Dame	7-1
11	Alabama	6-2
12	Boise State	7-1
13	SMU	8-1
14	Texas A&M	7-2
15	LSU	6-2
16	Ole Miss	7-2
17	Iowa State	7-1
18	Pitt	7-1
19	Kansas State	7-2
20	Colorado	6-2
21	Washington State	7-1
22	Louisville	6-3
23	Clemson	6-2
24	Missouri	6-2
25	Army	8-0

[Fightingscot82]

Alabama's gonna drop because they're playing I-AA Mercer next weekend. I need to research the formula they use because in the spirit of a playoff, there's no reason why an 8-0 team should be buried.