AJC > Sports > Tech > Blog > Archives > 2008 > September > 24 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTime to Stop ACC Bashing?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
When the latest AP and USA Today polls came out, Georgia Tech was where I thought it would be: getting votes but not in the Top 25.
I was surprised, however, that Virginia Tech didn’t make it. The Hokies are 3-0 since QB Tyrod Taylor got into the lineup. They lead the Coastal Division at 2-0.
The ACC went 6-0 in nonconference games on Saturday, including Miami’s big win at Texas A&M and N.C. State’s upset of then-No. 15 East Carolina. Looks like the conference is bouncing back from a horrible start.
Take a look at Jeff Sagarin’s power ratings in USA Today. In his first ranking system, the ACC ranks third behind the SEC and Big 12 and just ahead of the Big 10. Then come the Pac 10, Big East and Mountain West.
In his other system, the ACC ranks fifth.
Also interesting to note Sagarin’s current ranking of ACC teams: Va. Tech, Wake Forest, Ga. Tech, B.C., Clemson, Miami, FSU, Maryland, UNC, UVA, NC State, Duke.
I’ll be the first to admit the ACC looks stronger than I initially thought, that I might have over-reacted to the poor start.
Do you think the ACC will keep rising?
Comments
By Voice of Reason!!
September 24, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
No. Bad Conference.
By William R. Smith
September 24, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
only time will tell….that is why they play the games.
By TheBlogger
September 24, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
Voice of reason has no reason.
For some stupid and incongruent reason, SEC fans love to bash the ACC regardless of reality. This makes no sense at all since the two conferences play many games against one another. If you bash the opponent, you don’t make yourself look good at all. Why would you be proud to beat a cupcake? Shouldn’t you want the opponent to be strong so that winning actually means something?
Logic and SEC fans do not go together.
As an ACC fan, I love for everyone to think that the SEC is strong. It only makes it that much sweeter when an ACC team beats up an SEC team (see GA Tech vs. Miss State).
And, the reality for the ACC is far different from what these fans think. One can look back using actual facts to support the reality that the ACC is a strong football conference. Almost every year for the last 15 years, the ACC finishes ranked in the top 3 conferences in football in most any poll that one can find (computer or otherwise). To claim that the ACC is weak in football simply shows that the person making that claim knows nothing of the reality of football.
Kinda like the ajc writer that made the stupid statement after the first game of ACC vs SEC that the “ACC should stick to basketball.” That ajc writer (cough cough Moore cough) is a complete idiot and regularly shows that he knows nothing of football, the ACC, or sports in general. Why he is paid for his opinion is beyond me.
By GTYJ
September 24, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
ACC is teh 4th best conference atw orst this year. We have no top 10 teams, but we have 6-7 that could easily be ranked in the top 20 some time this year, if not more.
By GT_JJ
September 24, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
The ACC’s image problem is one of it’s own making. Yes, the ACC bashing did reach ridiculous levels after the first weekend, and, no, I don’t think that mindset has been properly reversed after the results of the last couple of weekends. Still, though, the ACC will continue to struggle to get respect until they earn it in a game that REALLY matters (i.e. the Orange Bowl). Until then, all we can do is continue to rack up nonconference wins, and let the talking heads say whatever the heck they will.
By Meh
September 24, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
I am so tired of the conference discussion. I don’t care any more about ACC vs. SEC. I just want my team to win, and possibly the in-state rival to lose.
Why should you care about who NC State just beat? Or who Tennessee just lost to? I’m not a fan of those teams.
By GPB
September 24, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Maybe TheBlogger would like to explain the poor showing of ACC teams in BCS bowls and why highly ranked ACC teams have tie ins to play mid to lower tier SEC teams in lesser bowls.
By GT45
September 24, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
The ACC, for the most part, is young. Look for improvement by all teams as the season progresses. With that said, I do not feel the SEC is the powerhouse this year that everyone says. I see 4 or maybe 5 strong teams, there, and the rest middling. Everyone talks about how great USC is, but who have they played? Ohio St looks pretty middle of the road right now. I think you have about ten strong teams across the country that I’m not sure an ACC team could beat. After that, we would be in the mix.
By speechless
September 24, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
I haven’t a word to say. TheBlogger stole the words right out of my mouth.
By Wrecker1
September 24, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
The ACC probably has been a little down the last few years but not to the extreme that some think. Most ACC/SEC games are very competitive. Unfortunately the conference got off to a poor start this year and people go ahead and form their opinions for the season. Well the ACC got some big wins the last couple of weeks and have more chances coming up (ex. VPI vs Nebraska). I think the Big 10 + 1 only has 2-3 really good solid teams, the Pac 10 has a couple, and the Big 12 may be the best. The jury should still be out on the SEC b/c some of their supposed powers have been anything but sterling. I’m always amazed by the reasoning that comes out of the SEC - when they lose in conference it’s b/c they’re all so strong they just beat up on each other but when another conference does that well most of that conference is so sorry, blah blah blah. Last week we heard how MSU would whip TECH b/c they had stifled Auburn. This week the company line is that MSU is the bottom feeders of the conference. RED NECKS just make up your mind.
By gtg236s
September 24, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
I love the fact that SEC fans are stupid enough to think just because they are in a “strong” conference, by proximity their football team is “good”. Come game time the only thing that matters is who is the best team on the field. It was made very clear who was the better team last Sat. at Ga Tech.
So let the SEC fans and whomever else think the ACC is weak, it will only break their hearts more when they get taken to the wood shed.
By the way the “bottom feeder” excuse doesn’t work. The same fans shouting that jewel of an excuse will most likely flip it if the bottom feeder beats an SEC opponent. Try not to laugh when you hear: “Well the SEC is such a strong conference that we just end up beating each other up.” Please.
By Dodd's Legacy
September 24, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
You were stupid to start the ACC bashing in the first place.
When is the AUC going to start auctioning off its assets?
By yellowblood
September 24, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
The ACC has some of the nation’s best Tickle Piles but none compare to ours. At Tech we are in a class by ourselves.
By GPB
September 24, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Kind of like when GT fans blame calculus when they are getting their a*#s beat, huh gtg236s. When GT loses a few more games the calculus excuse will be front and center once again.
By GT GRAD
September 24, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
I was wondering if any of the sports writers would start a blog on this subject. The facts are clear:
ACC needs to win more games to gain or obtain the respect the conference deserves.
ACC teams CONSISTENTLY end up ranked higher at the end of the year in comparision to the ridiculous pre-season rankings.
Most of the major conferences (SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12, PAC 10) schedule a huge percentage of super soft teams out of conference. I have noticed that this year has been a little out of the oridnary for the SEC - they actually played a few decent teams out of conference. This is a proven approach because it gives the conference a strong record out of conference.
If the AJC writer had posted the stats (which purposely made the ACC look weak) for the other BCS conferences, the ACC record would not have seemed so bad. This would have provided a fair comparision for reference. I would also like to see the average ranking of the out of conference opponents for all of the BCS conferences for comparision. The AJC writer accomplished his goal; to make the ACC look weak. Why do so many media people have to be so freak’n biased (sports & politics)?
Miami & VT do not seem like world beaters anymore. The very season they left the BIG EAST, Rutgers, Louisville & West Virginia IMMEDIATELY became TOP 10 teams!! Give me a freak’n break. MIAMI & VT started playing better competition and the 3 BIG EAST teams had complete cake walks after MIAMI, VT & BC left the BIG EAST. This fact alone strongly suggests that the ACC is better than many pundents would like to admit.
By DawgBittenTechFan
September 24, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
If GT had to play Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Florida, et al, i.e. 8 SEC teams every year you can bet they would be telling anybody within earshot how great the SEC is.
By CD
September 24, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
How many BCS bowls has the ACC won in the last 10 years GT GRAD?
By jabster
September 24, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Yes, the ACC will keep rising. We never get the “media bounce” that the SEC, Pac-10, Big Ten, and ND get. We always have to prove ourselves. Not always a bad thing.
Here’s one person’s opinion of who will be doing the proving, along with a trend indicator (up, down, steady):
Hoagies: The current favorite to win the ACCC, and will be if they don’t choke. Yanking Taylor’s redshirt was a great move. ^^^
Wake Forest: Current favorite to win the ACCA. Probably the stoutest team in the conference as of right now. A veteran team helps. Unfortunately, not a lot of upside potential here. —-
Ga. Tech: A fantastic start for the youngest team in the conference. Could make it to Tampa and win but for VT. ^^^
BC Powderpuffs: Will that QB grow up? If so, should be a good team, but not a contender. —-
Clempsun: Not as bad as the Bama game suggested, but not that good, either. Could back into Tampa if Wake stumbles and BC doesn’t gel. —-
Candy Canes: Underrated! No worse than the 4th best team in the ACC. Yes, they got their butts handed to them by Florida (who could win the whole dang thing, so no shame there), but improving weekly. ^^^
Half @$$ U: What a shame. Probably will wind up with a losing season and no bowl since way back when. vvv
TMNTerps: Showing signs of life after being left for dead. Will probably make a minor bowl. ^^^
Carowhina: Could have had a breakout year until their QB got hurt. vvv
Cadavers: Worst team in the ACC. Period. And getting worse. May not win another game. vvv
NC State: See Maryland. Probably too late for a winning season but still improving. ^^^
Puke: While they will still probably have a losing season, they will win some games they shouldn’t. Cutcliffe is ahead of schedule here. ^^^
So, we have 6 teams on the upswing, 3 holding steady (Clempsun, Wake, and BC), and 3 declining (Carowhina due to injuries, F$U, and UVA).
No doubt that the SEC is the best conference right now, with the Big 12 second. But you could make an excellent case for the ACC for third.
As an aside, the last time Tech lost to a non-UGA SEC team was LSU in the Peach Bowl (right as LSU was beginning their current run), and you have to go all the way back to Auburn in 1987 for a regular season SEC L.
By GTA
September 24, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Larry, Thanks for the insightful blog. I think this is the kind of blog fans are looking for from you.
As far as the ACC goes, I still think the ACC is, if nothing else, on par with the Big 12. The reason the big 12 is ranked higher is because of their quarterback play (which we lack). I’m still wearing my gold-tinted glasses though. After our performance on Saturday, I find it hard to believe other ACC teams would have an easy time stopping us as we get better and more efficient at running this offense. This might already have the makings of a special year.
By Xs and Os
September 24, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Does anyone here know when the ACC last recieved a BCS at large invitation?
By jabster
September 24, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
GT Grad:
ESPN had a great pair of articles about the fact that the ACC plays more BCS teams for OOC games than any other BCS conference (with GT #3 in the country!), and the SEC the least.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=frightful/080905
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=formidable/080905
By David
September 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
I think GT could certainly handle Auburn you know the team that squeaked by MSU 3-2, Tennessee is awful (got beat by UCLA who themselves got beat the next week 59-0 by a WAC team BYU. Alabama may be having a decent year..havent played anyone yet…but will this week, LSU beat troy and app state and squeaked by auburn. And you know I think we could handle KY and Vandy every single year plus those non -conf powers like Cent Mich and GA SOU. I like UGA would only be worried about Florida. But it is only the SEC that wants national prominence but always complain about their schedule.
By BuzzFactor
September 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
I have to agree, that the ACC gets bashed way more than deserved. The one good arguement is our post-season performance in the last several years. But all that is going to start changing this year. I posted the same thing 2 weeks ago on ESPN. The ACC has been slowly getting better but losing the bowl games. I really believe this year the ACC will pull out a few good bowl victories and finally the expansion will start to show the benefits other than money.
By bb
September 24, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
What is so funny about the whole ACC bashing that has been going on the last couple of years, is the people who are doing the bashing and the argument they are using. It is true that the ACC has not had a team that could seriously compete for a national championship in several years (hince the conference’s struggles in BCS bowls).
Yet, I can remember only a few years ago that SEC fans were screaming load and clear that ONE team (i.e. FSU for example, when they were competing for the MNC every year) does not make a conference (see Pac10 this year). The true test of a conference is how good it’s middle level teams and, to a lesser extent, it’s bottom tier teams are.
The ACC is, and always has been, one of the better football conferences (usually ranking in the top 3-4). The middle tier teams in the ACC are much better than probably every conference besides the SEC (and are probably comparable to the SEC). So, the biggest difference in the ACC and the SEC is the top tier (4-5 teams), the depth of the leagues are not much different beyond that.
The ACC has done very well against the other power conferences historically. However the last 2-3 years they have not done as well. A big part of the reason is that the SEC has been the best conference for the last 2-3 years. That in and of itself has hurt the ACC’s image since many of the ACC’s high profile OOC games are against the SEC. The ACC has lost more of those games than in the past (until just 2 years ago the ACC was holding it’s own against the SEC head-to-head).
By Hal
September 24, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Isn’t it amazing that this year we are all of a sudden putting so much emphasis on conference rankings. I wonder why? Could it be that CBS and ESPN have spent money on SEC games and now they want to hedge their bet by all this confrence talk. How better to serve their interest than to bad mouth their greatest competition for talent in the future buy playing them up in a year when the SEC is up and the ACC is weaker than usual.
By CD
September 24, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
You guys are doing a masterful job making your case without answering one question. How many BCS bowls has the ACC won in the last 10 years and as Xs and Os asked, when was the last time an ACC team got a BCS at large bowl berth. BCS bowls are the ultimate measuring stick. The best against the best.
By Huh?
September 24, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
LOL. Typical Tech fans. They don’t want to talk about how South Carolina humiliated NC State. They don’t want to talk about Clemson biting the dust against Bama on national television. They don’t want to talk about Florida barely breaking a sweat against Miami. Nor do they want to talk about Wake Forest, the highest ranked team in the ACC, barely squeaking by celler dweller Ole Miss by two points. They don’t want to talk about the ACC’s current 2-3 record against the SEC, which is the norm each and every single everlovin’ year. Nope. All Tech fans want to talk about is their big win over Mississippi State. They only want to talk about the things that support their argument and ingnore the things that don’t. For people who pound their chests constantly about how smart they are, you sure aren’t very good at debating.
The ACC remains a joke until proven otherwise. Here are a few facts for you Techies to punch in to your pocket calculators.
Fact: The SEC has a winning record against the ACC this decade.
Fact: The SEC has the best BCS bowl record of any conference.
Fact: The ACC has the worst BCS bowl record of any conference.
Fact: The SEC went 7-2 in bowl games last year.
Fact: The ACC went 2-6 in bowl games last year.
Fact: The SEC Champion won the national title last year.
Fact: The ACC Champion lost to Kansas in its bowl game last year.
Fact: The ACC Champion got its freakin’ doors blown off by the SEC Champion last year.
Shall I keep going Tech fans? The list is virtually endless. The evidence insurmountable. The SEC craps on the ACC each and every year. This is a fact. That’s why we run our mouths. Its called bragging rights. Its a very simple concept really. I thought you guys were supposed to be smart.
By jabster
September 24, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Hal:
Don’t worry…the ACC is working on a FB+hoops network package that will outdo CBS-SEC…
By dawgeatvol
September 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
zzzzzzz….huh, what?….zzzzzzzz
By 2HLLWGA
September 24, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
ESPN did take a look at which conferences/teams did not shy away from playing BCS teams. NO SEC team made their top ten list: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=formidable/080905 7 of the top 14 (there was a 6 way tie for #9) are ACC schools, GT is #3.
However when one looks at the “BCS Bullies”, the SEC was well represented - 5 of the “top” 10 teams are discovered (or uncovered) as SEC and the writer questions: “couldn’t it also be said that SEC teams should pick on someone their own size if they’re really that good?” http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=frightful/080905
Nothing would solve this until there is an ACC-SEC challenge, similar to the ACC-Big Ten Challenge in basketball. Maybe someone should propose this…
By CD
September 24, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Thanks Huh?. You pretty much put this blog to rest. When the ACC reverses what Huh? so concisely layed out then it will be time to stop bashing the ACC. Until then I guess ACC fans will just have to deal with it.
By Jimthorpe
September 24, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
If the ACC is so bad, how come so many of our guys become NFL players? Two of the top ten players drafted last year graduated from UVA. It’s just a matter of time before Miami and FSU resurrect by the way, and watch out for VA TECH: if they run the table from here they could end up playing for all the marbles.
By Chris
September 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Everything the SEC is in football is what the ACC is in basketball. If the SEC makes a strong showing in basketball… that’s great. And unlikely. If the ACC makes a strong showing in football… that’s also great. And unlikely.
By BR
September 24, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
“The Blogger” needs to wake up! Does he/she realize that Miss State is the WORST TEAM in the SEC? Face it, the SEC is by far the strongest conference. We have five teams in the TOP TEN. The ACC just needs to stop whining and realize that they are weak, plain and simple.
By bb
September 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
A few facts for those SEC fans that think the SEC has been the best conference forever.
In the BCS era (1998-2007) the SEC has only the 3rd best record against BCS OOC opponents (95-92). The ACC is 4th with a 111-111 record (that includes a miserable 19-32 the last 2 years). Head-to-head the SEC leads the ACC 41-30 during that span.
Let’s back up a couple of years and leave 2006 and 2007 out of the equation.
From 1998-2005 the ACC had the BEST record against BCS OOC opponents (92-79) and the SEC was FIFTH at 69-74 (only the Big East was worst). And the SEC only held a 28-26 advantage head-to-head against the ACC.
So, even though the ACC has had a couple of down years, I wouldn’t bash them too much.
By Gary
September 24, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
Huh doesn’t speak for all SEC fans. I am a fan of both leagues and even though I don’t think the ACC is nearly as strong as the ACC, they are not crap either. There are a lot of good programs in the ACC and it has become a very competitive conference. But it is hard to beat the marquis coaches and recruiting ability of the SEC. I have no problem pulling for ACC teams against other conferences and I’ll pull for FSU over Florida every year. You can love the Dawgs and hate the Jackets without trashing the whole conference.
By GT Fan
September 24, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
I’m a huge GT fan, but even I’ll admit that the ACC isn’t very good. But, on the other hand, there are really only two good conferences out there (SEC and Big 12). I mean, is there really any difference between the Pac 10, the ACC, and the Mountain West?? BYU would smack all of those teams except USC.
By Bobby
September 24, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
HEY GUYS. I am a huge DAWG FAN. I BLEED RED AND BLACK, so this hurts me to say this….but you guys have something special with Coach Johnson. I watched you guys play Miss. State and I was VERY VERY impressed. I told my buddies that as a UGA fan this is the first time that I dont’ want anything to do with that offense. Don’t get me wrong I hope we kill you guys at the end of the year, just as I am sure you want to kill us. I just wanted to let you know that I think your program is heading in the right direction….damn that hurt to say that. Good luck the rest of the year.
By Jim Tatum
September 24, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
the news the ACC is weak is about as surprising as the news Clay Aiken is gay. when compared to the SEC, any conference is weak (even the PAC Ten, if you accept that USC is not really part of the PAC 10). The Big XII? Texas and OU have put together some good runs, but it remains to be seen if KU and Mizzou can consistently compete at the “top 10” level. The ACC, like the Big East, MAC, Big 10, Mountain West, etc.; might have an occassional surprise, but when a ACC front runner like Wake Forest needs a last second FG to beat a SEC cellar dweller like Ol’ Miss, I think the proof is in the pudding. In fact, given the past couple years, the BCS should just crown its “champion” 15 minutes after the completion of the SEC title game.
By Idiots
September 24, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Huh? - what argument are you making? No one claimed that the ACC is better than the SEC. Nearly everyone has said that the SEC is better. Did you actually read any of the posts before you started ranting? But you just want o pound your chest about the SEC right? Good for you.
The ACC bowl record was pitiful last year, and to the other 2 idiots on here, the ACC hasn’t won a BCS bowl in 8 years. Pitiful, i know. A big reason has been VT choking in bowl games the past few years. Climpsun loves to choke in big time games as well. All we can do is hope that we are back on the right track, and after this past weekend, it looks that way.
So to answer the blogger, the ACC is not as bad as we all feared, but they need to get better, and desperately need to win their BCS game this year. Im sure VT will go out and lose to Nebraska, making the ACC look even worse. VT gets close garbage calls in conference games to squeak out a win, and now they will go embarass everyone at Nebraska. Wonderful.
By Alabama Jack
September 24, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
You can always tell a dawg - you just can’t tell them much.
By CD
September 24, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Nobody said the ACC had no talent Jimthorpe. It’s the fact that the ACC can’t get it done on the big stage at season’s end that illustrates why they get dissed on.
By Tech Fan
September 24, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
I’ll agree that the SEC is a better football conference… if the UGA fans agree that the ACC is a better conference academically…. ie. our degrees actually aren’t worthless…. It’s easy to have a great football team with dumb athletes if you go to worthless school academically….
By TB
September 24, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
The image of the ACC is killing the conference on the recruiting front. For recruits in the SE, they often settle for the ACC if no SEC schools recruit them.
In The AU / MSU game a player from South Carolina said he was recruited by FSU, Clemson and NC but wanted to play in the SEC so he went to all places Miss ST (???) go figure.
In this state look at the 2 schools GT - ACC, and UGA - SEC (I am a fan of neither) look at the facilities differences, fan base / sold out games, national TV coverage and athletic budgets. You cant blame these kids. Until there is a major tilt toward the ACC, it will be more of the same.
By George P. Burdell
September 24, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
First you have to be careful looking at Sagarin rankings this time of year. As he explains, there isn’t enough data yet so the rankings include a weighting based upon past years performance. That weighting impacts the results less and less each week, but right now it is a fairly significant factor.
That said, I don’t think there is any doubt that the ACC has been improving over the season and should continue to do so. All you SEC fans chill out, nobody said the ACC was better right now or even over the past few years. The question was about the ACC’s perception and is it justified.
If you want to define it by BCS success, thats fine. Just remember that if UGA loses to USC, LSU loses to say Oklahoma, and the ACC rep whips an at large you deem not worthy, by your own limited definition you believe the ACC is the better conference. The problem with all you SEC homers is that you change your rules/evaluation depending on how you can make it look best for yourself.
When FSU was dominating the ACC, Florida was doing the same to the SEC, and FSU pretty much owned Florida during that same time. Granted there were fewer top notch teams in the ACC at the time, but do you honestly think that FSU wouldn’t have had a pretty dominant streak in the SEC as well?
By CD
September 24, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
It’s not just SEC fans who think the SEC is the best. It’s coaches, the media, commentators, and most of those considered knowledgable about the sport. Tell us bb, who wins the BCS BOWLS? You know. The only ones that matter. Come on. you can say it. You guys keep coming back with everything but who runs with the big dogs. BCS teams (OCC opponents) doesn’t mean squat. Any team from a BCS conference can be that opponent. DUH!!!! So what does it mean when when an ACC team beats up on some BCS OOC bottom feeder. Nothing. BCS BOWLS! That is the tell all. Where does the ACC rank in that case? Please tell us.
By Bobby
September 24, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Has any ACC team not named FSU ever won a BCS bowl?
By ACC? Please.
September 24, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
The ACCs problem is one of perception. When your historical conference football powers (Miami, Florida State, Clemson, VT) are taking a back seat in football to the basketball powers (Wake, North Carolina, Duke) then you have a serious perception problem. It would be like Vandy and Mississipi State playing for the SEC Championship, Indiana and Northwestern tied for the Big 10, Baylor and Iowa State playing for the Big 12 championship, Washington State and Arizona leading the Pac-10. Sure, they may be playing great football and there is parity in the conference not seen in years , but when the conference doormats are beating the historical powers, you’re in for a perception problem.
By ClemsonDude
September 24, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
The SEC cannot even come close to the academics level of the ACC schools so yes the SEC can play some high level football but you are bunch of stupid trailer trash rednecks except for Vanderbilt University. This ACC vs SEC discussion is so tiring. Overall the ACC is the best conference for Academics and Athetics in the country!
By YouKnewItWasComing
September 24, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
By Tech Fan
September 24, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
I’ll agree that the SEC is a better football conference… if the UGA fans agree that the ACC is a better conference academically…. ie. our degrees actually aren’t worthless…. It’s easy to have a great football team with dumb athletes if you go to worthless school academically….
Didn’t you know it was just a matter of time until some loser came in here with the same old tired excuse. And wouldn’t you just know it would be someone from a school that just recently got nailed with the biggest academic fraud probation in ACC history. Sing it loud Tech Fan. You have that loser’s anthem down cold don’t you?
By Paddy
September 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
No mention of Fla St in these comments. Their season could be all over after the next 2 games. They have a real nice defense but the offense is just plain lost. The fans in Tallahassee are to the point of imploding soon. Discipline on the field is once again the major issue with a truck load of penelties, fumbles and interceptions. They finally got 8 starters back last week after their 3 & 4 game suspencions to start the season, didn’t help against Wake. WF played a below avg game and still won with ease.
By KS
September 24, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Southern Egotistical** Clowns
By Gary
September 24, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Sorry Tech Fan, but your “All SEC schools admit morons” attitude is just as senseless as Huh’s “ACC is a crap football conference” attitude. The fact is there are many academically tough schools in the SEC including, believe it or not, Georgia. Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Vanderbilt and Georgia to name a few, have excellent reputations in several areas of research and academics as evidenced by annual rankings of public universities. Many of those schools were able to build those reputations through money generated by their successful athletics programs. Gerogia Tech is a fine engineering school but SEC schools attract just as many academic scholars as they do. I worked my butt off to earn my degree at Georgia and I’m proud of it, just as all SEC grads have a right to be proud of the degrees they earned from LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, South Carolina, Florida, and Kentucky.
By Villa Rica DAWG
September 24, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
I, for one, think that the ACC is the second best conference out there. Sure, the PAC 10 has USC, but just about every other member of that conference is weak as hell. Much of the same could be said about the BIG 10, in reference to some good teams (some years). But as far as competition and talent, if you took all the players and teams and stacked them up against all the players and teams of the other conterences, I think the ACC comes in second.
That said, it’s pretty hard for us SEC fans to watch an ACC team play an undeafeated season or a one loss season playing 95% ACC teams and watch our guys lose two or three against 95% SEC teams and hear all the praises for your guys and our guys aren’t getting any respect.
That not logical…
Pound for pound, the SEC is a far better conference than the ACC.
Get over it…
By KS
September 24, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Southern Egotistical Clowns
By DeacinGA
September 24, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
I’m gonna laugh when Vandy wins the SEC Championship and all of these mouth-breathing SEC fans have to whine out explanations on how that could possibly happen.
By GTBALTFAN
September 24, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
To all of you statistics spouting bloggers: Who gives a rat’s a$$ about all of that. You need to get a life. The SEC is a great conference. So freakin’ what. It ain’t gonna make your stock portfolio go up. The ACC is not as good and it won’t make my portfolio go down. I went to Tech, I love Tech and as long as we play hard and smart, that’s fine by me. The good thing is that Tech is going to get better and it was good to see that at least one Dawg fan, “Bobby”, recognizes that Gt may just be a force to be reckoned with — 450 yards rushing against a team that held a top 15 SEC team, Auburn ,to 3 points. So just keep on barking. It will be what it will be.
By 75tranzam
September 24, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
Being the best team in the “coastal div.” is like being the fastest turtle…. you are still a turtle.
VT and the rest of the ACC are still members of a horrible conference. Being the best of that conference doesn’t impress anybody!
By Vdawg
September 24, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
I think everyone over-reacted at the start of the season. Georgia Tech gets better with every week. Being a UGA fan, I am glad to see some promise of success for this program. Surely it will add fire to a rivaly that has lost it’s luster during the Gailey years. Unlike many Dawg fans, I’m rooting for Tech except for one obvious game a year. Paul Johnson was the right man for the job and overall through the ACC they are all re-building and things are coming along well I would say. I do think the teams we will see at the top of the ACC will be different that in years past.
By Brewer for GT President
September 24, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
There is no doubt that the SEC is a better football conference than the ACC in recent years. But the senseless ACC bashing needs to end. The SEC is the best conference in college football but they are no God-like juggernauts either. UT’s loss to UCLA, South Carolina’s struggles and GT’s stomping of a much-hyped MSU defense (using a true freshman back up QB) should be evidence enough of that. I would think that SEC fans would want the ACC to be considered the 2nd best conference in NCAA Football because of the number of games the two conferences play against each other. A strong ACC would make the SEC’s strength of schedule look better. Some folks are blinded by hate, or ignorance.
By Marty
September 24, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Most all losses of ACC teams to non-conference opponents is due to bad officiating, Don’t believe me ask a Tech fan.
By That_Guy
September 24, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
It’s amazing how many people completely lost the point of the article and proved the point. No one has said the ACC was better than the SEC. The author asked if the ACC was bashed unfairly? Hell yes they were. Top to bottom the ACC is 2nd or 3rd in the country behind the SEC and Big 12. 1-4 top tier teams does not a power conference make. BCS games? That’s the conferences’ top 1-2 teams against the other ones. Fine, the ACC doesn’t have those powers, but if you’re asking about the conference AS A WHOLE that’s 12 teams smart guys.
By virtueandvice
September 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Keep sleeping on Maryland
By Mark
September 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Did anyone else think it was the funniest thing they ever heard last week when Tech fans were chanting A-C-C while beating a 1-2 team that had lost to Louisiana Tech? I read that part of the article several times just to make sure it wasn’t a joke.
Tech Fan…. To admit that the ACC is better academically would not be the truth. True, the ACC has Duke, but the SEC has Vandy. Tech and Georgia both have extraordinarily high requirements now for acceptance…but they are different schools….one is more “tech” focused while the other is more broad based. To be perfectly honest, I would be more likely to hire UGA graduates than Tech graduates because I would consider their education to be better rounded. I did not garduate from either one.
By John Knows All
September 24, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Yes - the ACC will continue to rise and one team in general - Georgia Tech. They will continue to rise week in and week out culminating on Nov 29 when they go into Athens and beat UGA!
By 1Jacket7
September 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
BCS at large? No. But the ACC Champion is a BCS recipient to the Orange Bowl.
By FisheriesDawg
September 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Before we begin to proclaim the “return to dominance” (snicker) of the ACC, let’s look at who exactly their big wins are against so far:
Far and away the best win. We’ll see how Cal does the rest of the season but Maryland had no business beating them and made it look fairly easy.
Yeah, it was a ranked team, but are you seriously going to brag about beating ECU? On top of that ECU largely built their reputation on a win over another ACC team and one over a WVU team that is clearly self-destructing right now.
Impressive win over a bad team, but credit to UNC for taking care of business.
A team that will probably finish in the bottom fourth of the SEC nearly beat the likely ACC champ at home.
Mississippi State doesn’t appear to be very good this year. Will hang around in the bottom 1/4 with Ole Miss. Credit to Tech for blowing their doors off, though.
Baylor. I don’t think I need to write anything else about that one.
Ummm…OK. Good for Duke I guess.
So there are some nice wins there, but nothing of the sort that can counter out Clemson getting throttled by Alabama, NC State getting throttled by South Carolina, Miami showing no life against Floida, Virginia Tech losing to ECU and Maryland losing at MTSU. I won’t even mention Virginia out of sheer pity for you guys.
The ACC certainly has an argument not to be dead last among BCS conferences, as the Big East and Pac-10 seem to be doing their damndest to steal that title from the ACC this year, but I also would keep the ACC behind the SEC, Big XII, Mountain West and Big Ten as it looks right now.
By KS
September 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S. CA.T.C.H.I.N.G. CO.C.K.
By gtg
September 24, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
they suck, they always have sucked and always will suck. GT might as well take a flying leap at the moon. Chances are far greater those losers will hit the cheese ball in the sky than to beat the Mighty UGA Bulldog! UGA Rules, GT Drools, silly fools!
By gtg
September 24, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
KS, you are such a fairy! Go blow a donkey you screaming yellow queen!
By GT
September 24, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
The SEC has come a long ways academically, which has a real effect on this region’s economy. The ACC has come a long ways athletically in football where I think they have out drafted the SEC over the last few years. The pros are looking for some brains to run their complicated schemes and they can find them in both conferences. I will say it was the ACC, Virginia Tech that put Vick and Hall into the pros and the Falcons. I dealt the Blank Foundation is looking at Va.Tech as an endowment to give money.
By Bad Brad
September 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Hey Larry, how about taking KS’s comment off the board, please. Thanks.
By jimthorpe
September 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
I’m an ACC guy but no lucid person would suggest that we’re better than the SEC in football, and whatever superiority we may have enjoyed in basketball is fading fast. But these things tend to work in cycles; Miami’s got a great freshman QB, and they’ll be back in the top 10 soon, the situation in Clemson could improve after they fire T. Bowden at season’s end, and when Daddy Bowden finally moves along, FSU will be back, too. How about a nice ACC - SEC football challenge, to open the season?
By GT Ba-ROCKS!
September 24, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..
By TampaWreck
September 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this
The ACC is clearly not as bad this year as some would claim, but to suggest that we are anywhere close to the SEC right now is just ridiculous. As much as I hate to admit it Georgia, Florida, LSU, and Alabama would all be favored heavily against any ACC team this year.
Until we get a legitimate top ten team, I think we should just shut up and play ball. If we win, improved team and conference rankings will come.
By JR
September 24, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
I guess that in order to have a big time football program you have to have a major like “Sports Communications” to stick the football player in for a passing grade. Hey, it works for UGA!
By NYJacket
September 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
The only SEC game that matters to me is the one in late November when Tech buckles it up against UGA.
Until then let the SEC fans beleive the SEC is all powerful.
By DICK ESKEW
September 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
I AM DICK ESKEW AND WHAT I SAY GOES! LOOK AT THOSE FUZZY JACKETS GO. JUST LIKE I SAID. PAUL HAS A BIG JOHNSON AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT. HE IS GOOD ON OFFENSE IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
By Tar Heel Fan
September 24, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
Most ACC fans are waiting for basketball season! Then the tables will turn. Enjoy it while it lasts, SEC!
By NYJacket
September 24, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
GT BA-rocks. Well said.
By Brewer for GT President
September 24, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Mark The crowd had listened to a week of (some) SEC fans telling them that GT’s ‘joke of a high school football offense’ couldn’t move the ball against ANY SEC defense, bottom feeder or not. This of course was supported by MSU’s near shutout of AU. So after all the hype and Nesbitt’s injury early in the game, Tech’s offense ran all over MSU. The A-C-C chants were for the trash talkers.
By efrem
September 24, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
The media blew up this notion it seems the ACC is the conference willing to take on non cup cakes. it would be different if the SEC took on a USC or an oklahoma at the begaining of the season.
By future freshman
September 24, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Here’s a chance to win tickets to the Duke-Georgia Tech game on October 4, cut your taxes and help pave the way for future Yellow Jackets to attend Georgia Tech. Just go to [www.path2college529.com] (www.path2college529.com) for sweepstakes rules and to find out more about the State of Georgia’s tax-deferred higher education savings 529 plan and register to win four tickets to the Georgia Tech game against Duke. There’s no obligation beyond registering, and the winner will get free limousine transportation to and from the game as well as pre-game hospitality and sideline passes, game programs, and a football autographed by Coach Johnson. But sign up now! The deadline for registration is September 28. No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited.
By SOUTHSIDE
September 24, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
HERE’S THE FACTS, SINCE 1990 THE SEC IS 54-46 AGIANST THE ACC IN HEAD TO HEAD REGULAR SEASON GAMES, AND 18-18-2 IN HEAD TO HEAD BOWL MATCH-UPS. THE MAJOR PLAYERS IN THAT SERIES IS SC. V. CLEMSON AND UGA V. GT. GA. AND CLEMSON DOMINATE. YES, THE SEC WAS DOMINANT LAST YEAR, MUCH LIKE THE ACC IN 1990 WHEN GA. TECH WON THE NC. THE ACC WAS 5-1 IN BOWL GAMES WITH THE ONLY LOSS BEING VIRGINIA(WITH A QUARTERBACK WITH HIS THROWING HAND IN A CAST) LOSING TO SEC CHAMPION BAMA 25-22.
By ant banks
September 24, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
To the Blogger @ 9:04 a.m. you are braggin’ cause tech, an acc school beat up miss st., an sec school. please make sure that you are around when the ga. bulldawgs, an sec team, trounces ga. tech, an acc team.
Please count the number of sec teams that are in the top 15 and then count the number of acc teams in the top 25…i rest my case
By OldGold
September 24, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
ACC can hold it’s own with any conference in the country. Ohio State in ACC = 7-8 win team. Miami found out the hard way.
By Gt-Ba-Rock bites
September 24, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
to GT BA-rocks. Wrong blog dude.None of these mutts give a rat’s butt about all that crap.All they care about is hiney sniffin’ bulldogs. But while we’re at it, anybody who hangs around with guys like Wright, Fegler, Ayres, Resko,Farrakan and their ilk is not the kind of person who shuld be running the free world. He’s poisoned and I don’t care if he went to Harvard or not. If elected, he’ll be the ruination of the nation.
By 1Jacket7
September 24, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
The ACC has always been a very strong and competitive conference. The problem is that everyone defined our strength through the performances of FSU andn Miami. Yes they have had some strong years through the 80’s and 90’s, but what about the 60’s and 70’s and what about the 00’s and beyond. The fact is that teams go through cycles and when they are hot give them their due, but when they are not find the teams that are. With the 85 scholarship limit the decades of domination and dynasties may be over. There are a lot of great athlete’s who want to play this great sport of football and they will be spread out across this country resulting in great teams everywhere. The fact is we don’t know who is better than who unless they play each other. UGA has had the best talent for years. People and news sources talking about their elite recruiting classes and for the last 6 years, Tech had a chance to win 5. And everyone knows it. So, realize that when great coaching, great athletes and great team chemistry all come together at once you will start to see Team success and eventually conference success. The ACC has this and its resurgence is near.
By surfrider
September 24, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
Top to bottom the ACC has to be up there in the top few. Duke considered the worst could provide upsets on a given day. The caliber of coaching which has greatly increased over the last 20 years is even better with the additions of Johnson, Davis, Cutliffe…to go along with the others. Miami is getting back or closer to being Miami. Their defense can play with anyone and once offense gets experience they will be tough. Another top recruiting class could push them back into the top 10. UNC with Davis is a year or so away from being close to where they were when Mack Brown left. Duke with Cutliffe. UVA and Tech have solid programs. VT with Beamer. The other side is just as strong. I’m looking at the SEC and still wandering how good are they or are they overrated? Bama, Ga., UF no question are good this year it appears. But is LSU overrated without an experienced QB yet? Is Auburn overrated? We know UT and S.C. and the Miss. are a little down right now. How good is Vandy and UK? The SEC does seem to have the best and highest paid coaches right now but the ACC is closing the gap. Only time will tell as only 4 or so games have been played.
By The Truth
September 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
This debate and arguments back and forth just crack me up. The essence of the conference comparisons can be summed up in two words: WHO CARES?
I am old school and there are some teams such as Georgia or Clemson or Notre Dame that I will never pull for no matter who they are playing. Dawg fans hate Florida so much but they will pull for them in out of conference games just to use their results to make themselves look bigger and better. It makes no sense at all….either you like them or you don’t….bottom line.
So to Huh? who started all of this statistical comparison crap….please do us a favor. Move out of your Mama’s basement, get a job and a life.
By GT45
September 24, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
DWEYER FOR HEISMAN!!! Get ready-it’s coming!
By bob
September 24, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
I agree, the ACC is a great conference.
If Georgia Tech was in any other conference they would be in the top 15, at least.
The good news is they do play Georgia and then the media will see what a great football program Georgia Tech has become! Buzzzzzz
Hopefully that game will put Georgia Tech in the top 5 and a well deserved chance to play for the National Champioship, and then people will realize what a great conference the ACC is.
By BuzzFactor
September 24, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Bottom line - The ACC is clearly not the worst BCS conference.
By That_Guy
September 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
I’m with BuzzFactor- it’s not the best, but it’s in the top half.
By TechCrybaby
September 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Face it, the SEC probably IS the better conference. After all, TECH players say, “I’ll take a little time off from the books, to play a game of football.” UGA players say, “What’s a book?”
By NoWAY
September 24, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Take any of the ACC schools and place them in the SEC and they would be at best bottom feeders. Weak conference. There teams can possibly get up for one or two big games per year, but would NEVER be able to compete every week with the likes of Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, LSU and lately Kentucky.
By Dawgstephen
September 24, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
The ACC isnt the elite conference right now, but isnt due the bashing.
ACC is still a good conference.
By gt fan
September 24, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
dis n dat…
doesnt take imagination to figure why the sec ALWAYS bashes the ACC.
we recruit in the same part of the country. hello… mcfly. recruiting is the life’s blood of cfb.
the sec bashes everybody.
yes the conference of low academic an moral standards blows its own horn. OFTEN.
how can the ACC compete with a conference where most of the ahtletes and half of the student bodies dont even meet the entrance requirements of their respective university sic. AND they just lowered the standards yet again for the athletes.
instead of just one miamieque team of inner city thugs the sec has 12.
personally i think the acc has two issues.
we need to continue to improve our coaching.
we need to get rid of that nancy girl we have for a commissioner.
until we have a commisioner who can actually go toe to toe with the sec commish than we will always be second tier.
By CD
September 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
By TechCrybaby
September 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Face it, the SEC probably IS the better conference. After all, TECH players say, “I’ll take a little time off from the books, to play a game of football.” UGA players say, “What’s a book?”
Yeah buddy! Those genious Tech footballers sure were on top of it with all those “free elective” non-degree courses that exposed you as the biggest academic posers in the NCAA. Can you say PROBATION…ACADEMIC FRAUD…LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL? Yep. You guys sure had it going on with that con game.
By SouthBendJacket
September 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
The reason people bash the ACC is because we don’t have a headline team. Almost every team in the ACC could be the 2nd or 3rd team in every other conference. Who’s good in the PAC-10? USC. After that, they are garbage. Big Ten? Do they even have anybody? Until GT steps up and truly understand PJ’s offense and starts dominating, people will underestimate this conference. My feeling is let them. It makes it that much more sweet when we beat them!
By True Tech Fan
September 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
I’m an Atlanta native. My father started following Georgia Tech in 1937. I grew up with Tech through the bad years and the abysmal years.
I’ll put good money on none’a’y’all’s ability to remember one of the REAL reasons UGA won their National Title of Blessed Memory. Georgia went into the Sugar Bowl with no losses or ties. Notre Dame, on the other hand, had one tie: To Georgia Tech.
As for calculus: Who cares if your business administration guy makes a mistake. It can always be fixed. An engineer from Tech makes a mistake, people fall off bridges. These are the guys you want to be really, really smart.
By CD
September 24, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
Now tell us about the morals of your rapists, drug dealers, overdosers, and non-existent joke of a drug testing/counseling program gt fan. You guys have become the cesspool of the ACC and STILL you sanctimoniously proclaim your purity.
By fsujd
September 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
Here is what you need to know about for this year so far: the SEC has played 8 games against BCS competition and is 5-3 with another loss coming this weekend after Texas mashes Arkansas. The ACC is 6-6 against BCS competiton, playing 4 more games against BCS teams. Not that much of a difference in record after Texas is done and ACC will have played 3 or more games against big league teams after this weekend. The ACC got off to a horrible start but is now gaining ground. Sagarin has the ACC as third best now.
By CD
September 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Good point True Tech Fan. Tech engineers must be the reason the infrastructure in this country is falling apart. Not to mention those Tech engineered tiles that keep falling off the Space Shuttle. I’m sure those Astronauts appreciate the hot feet.
By Really?
September 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
Maybe all you need to know about this year so far is Alabama, a team picked 3rd in the SEC West stomped the hell out of Clemson, the top team in the ACC and a team picked by some to win the NC. That is probably a lot more relevant than Sagarin after just 4 games. But I commend your exceptional talent at cherry picking something so worthless after just 4 games this season. I think I will put more stock in real football folks associated with the coaches poll.
By True Tech Fan
September 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
CD:
You’re an idiot. Don’t you realize that the mode you are using to spread your vitriol (if you even know what that means without checking out your comic book dictionary) was created in part by Tech grads? I’d love to see your references that support your idea that the End of the Earth was engineered by Yellow Jackets.
Go get a real education.
By Clay Aiken
September 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
I am all about being butt naked for these SEC boys. Don’t you just love me, SEC?
By GT ba-ROCKS
September 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..
By Really, you are an idiot
September 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
That was preseason rankings there buddy. WVU was also in the top 5 weren’t they? Climpsun was just overrated, and Bama is better than expected. And you SEC guys are just too stupid to realize that this article is only claiming that the ACC is a top-5 conference, and no one (with any football sense atleast) claims it is better than the SEC. Man you guys are stupid.
By ugablows
September 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
f*ck this idiotic discussion who cares about the conference, all i know is that CPJ is building a tough and confident team on the flats that will very soon be able to beat ANY team from ANY conference on any given day.
any ugay fan who won’t admit that he’s nervous about playing us in Nov. is lying or braindead…there’s going to be a war in athens this year
By bigGTfan
September 24, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
The ACC schedules a higher percentage of games vs BCS-level opponents than ANY other conference.
Here are the percentages for non-conference, BCS opponents: ACC: 48% Pac Ten: 45% Big East: 39% SEC & Big Twelve: 31% Big Ten: 29%
Over the past 40 or so non-conference games,the ACC has 8 schools in the top 20 in terms of percentages vs. BCS non-conference opponents. The SEC? They had 1 in the top 20 and SIX in the bottom 20.
The ACC doesn’t have the winning percentages of the SEC overall because the schedules are typically more difficult.
Go Jackets! THWG!!
By WN
September 24, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
Bottom line, people need to stop judging after a single weekend of games. The strength of a conference can be judged only by observing more than a single game, people are stuck from ACC’s results in the first weekend. This week was great in terms of non conference play, but there’s no telling what will happen next weekend. Critics bashed the ACC after the first week which was terrible, and then when we beat legitimate teams like Texas A&M and East Carolina, they still are not convinced. Stop wasting time. Let’s look at end of season and see where the conference stacks up. There’s more argument to be made if 6 or 7 teams make it to bowl games consistently over the years with couple ending up in Top 25. And let’s not go into the 1-6 record in BCS games too. That again, is looking at one game in a year. Yeah, most of them are in a row, but there’s only two outcomes in a game, win or lose. If we continue to make the record speak, then what does that make Ohio St?
By Barack Osama
September 24, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
I am a raging terrorist. I hate america and freedom. I refuse to wear an american flag as a pin, or put my hand over my heart for the national anthem. I followed a racist, biggot preacher for 20 years. We blame AIDS on the white man. My wife is embarassed to be an American. I have ties to the Black Panthers, and I let Osama bin Laden t-bag me every other weekend.
By Clay Aiken
September 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Gt ba rocks, i knew you loved me!! oh what a name. who needs a conference. i need you. take me.
By CD
September 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
The ACC is definately better than the Big 10. Ohio State is no better than 9-3/8-4 in the ACC or SEC. Big 12 too. The Big 10 is pitiful.
By TB
September 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Do you ever wonder why teams in the ACC have so many empty seats at home games?
By jabster
September 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
CD:
It’s easy to blame others for not upholding their standards when you don’t have standards to begin with. You can’t fail if you don’t set a bar. Not to bring politics into this, but the DemocratiCCCParty does this all the time to the GOP when they mess up, for a parallel example.
It’s one thing to make an honest mistake. Nobody was trying to pull a fast one at Tech, and I challenge you to prove that we did. Certainly not on the order of deliberately asking “student”-athletes how many points they get for a 3-pointer, or deliberately pressuring profs (Jan Kemp) to pass failing athletes. You can’t fob those off as “accidents”.
Meanwhile, you’d better worry about UGA getting through that gauntlet of Bama, LSU, Florida, and, yes, Tech.
And you’d better be pulling for us—and the rest of the ACC—the rest of the way because you’re gonna need all the SoS you can get your hands on to get past the media darlings who have man-crushes on the Pac-10. Trust me on this one.
By Reagan
September 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
TO GT-Ba-Rocks: I see you posted that same stupid email twice. Here are five good reasons to pray that your boy loses:
He spent 20 years litening to the hate filled rhetoric of Rev. Wright, who despises white people.(so does Michelle) It rubbed off. Oh, and don’t forget, G*dDamn America!
He’s spent an equal amount of time consorting with an unapologetic terrorist, Wm. Ayres, who is nothing short of a hate-America radical extremist. They spent their time extolling the virtues of a world school, America be damned.
3.Big support from recently convicted felon Tony Resko, who helped Obama get his million dollar mansion with a wink and a nod.
4.Thinks Farrakhan is ok.
If these are just a handful of the people who have influenced your candidate, we are in big trouble if he wins. And that’s not to mention his former Freddie and Fannie advisers who provide him with his insight into the country’s financial problems. Keep drinking the cool-aid but why not post this drivel on moveon.org instead of a GT football blog, you ignorant sheep.
By m
September 24, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
To understand the idiot inbred sec fans better, just substitute “my cuzzin’ is purtier than yore cuzzin’” for “my conference is better than yore conference. Trying to understand sec fans logic?!?! is like trying to teach a fish to ride a bicycle.
By fsujd
September 24, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Really,
It doesn’t matter where Bama was picked to finish, they may win the SEC for all we know. That old 3rd best in West vs. ACC 1 is old news since neither is true. Wake is ahead of Clemson clown and Bama is tied for first in the West!!
As for the coaches poll, half of the coaches don’t vote themselves and they don’t rank conferences. What is your beef with ACC as #3?
By GT45
September 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
Can we maybe have another blog topic, please!?! This is turning into another pi$$n contest, again, with the typical DA’s posting about nothing. Think Duke will beat VA this weekend? I do.
By CD
September 24, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
Larry, I apologize profusely. But I knew eventually someone would open the door for this. And wouldn’t you know it would be jabster. Not the brightes bulb on this blog. So here goes. Straight from the NCAA. Pay particular attention to the section detailing abuse of non-degree producing courses. Then there are Ds counted when a C is required. This report says it all.
Public Infraction Report
[THIS REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE NCAA DIVISION I INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE’S DECISION, SEE THE INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE’S REPORT LINKED ON THIS CASE’S WEBPAGE.]
FOR RELEASE: CONTACT: November 17, 2005 Gene A. Marsh, chair 3 p.m. Eastern time NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION.
On September 16, 2005, officials from the Georgia Institute of Technology appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to address allegations of NCAA rules violations in its athletics program. The violations involved ineligible participation by 17 student-athletes in four sports over six years as a result of the institution's academic advisors and registrar improperly certifying the student-athletes as eligible for competition. The institution misapplied NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1.5 governing satisfactory progress toward a degree. Specifically, the bylaw states that the calculation of degree progress shall be based on hours accepted for degree credit in a student athlete's specific baccalaureate degree program. Among the 17 ineligible student-athletes who participated were 11 members of the football team. Many of them were prominent members of the team, including multi-year starters at their positions who garnered conference honors and, in some instances, national recognition for their on-field achievements. The participation of the student-athletes while ineligible conferred a substantial competitive advantage on the institution. As a result, the committee finds that the contests in which they participated while ineligible shall be vacated. The other six ineligible student-athletes were members of the men's track, women's track and women's swimming teams. The points they contributed to team totals while ineligible shall also be vacated.Ten of the student-athletes were allowed to use nondegree-applicable “elective” courses for satisfactory progress purposes. The 24 credit hours used by one football student-athlete for continuing eligibility included 17 hours that were not degree-applicable. One prominent member of the football team used 12 nondegree-applicable hours to reach 24 credit hours in two consecutive years. Additionally, two members of the team competed even though they both used 10 hours of nondegree-applicable work to reach 24 hours. Other student-athletes were allowed to use as many as nine hours of non degree-applicable electives to maintain eligibility.
Six of the 17 student-athletes were allowed to count grades of “D” toward satisfactory progress even though their specific majors required a “C” or better for credit in the classes, and four of the student-athletes competed despite not achieving the necessary percentage of degree requirements.
The committee also finds that the institution lacked control over its department of athletics as a result of its failure to train the relevant staff members to correctly apply NCAA continuing eligibility legislation. As acknowledged by the institution's president at the hearing, the system was inadequate and the result of a lack of knowledge by those responsible for ensuring that student-athlete satisfactory progress standards were being met. The annual certification process was initiated by the director of compliance, who sent Certification of Eligibility forms to each student-athlete's academic advisor after making sure the student-athlete received athletics aid and checking on how many seasons of eligibility the student-athlete had used. The academic advisors completed the form, filling in all the eligibility and academic information. Among other things, the academic advisors attested to the number of hours each student-athlete had earned toward graduation, the percentage of degree requirements that had been attained and eligibility status. The advisors then sent the forms on to the registrar, who signed them certifying that the determinations of eligibility status made by the academic advisors were correct. Finally, the forms went to the faculty athletics representative (FAR) for final review. The FAR signed them as well. All four signatures (those of the compliance coordinator, the academic advisor, the registrar and the FAR) were at the end of the form and ostensibly certified that the information on the form was correct and in compliance with NCAA, conference and institutional rules. However, at the hearing, the compliance coordinator indicated that she signed the forms before they were completed and the FAR stated that he signed the forms only to indicate that the proper people had reviewed them. Neither he nor the compliance coordinator checked the accuracy of the information even though they signed the forms indicating that the information was correct. Consequently, the actual determinations of eligibility were left solely to the academic advisors and the registrar, who had not been properly trained to make such decisions. The individual who served as registrar (henceforth, "registrar 1") until 2000 held the position for over 30 years and was initially trained on eligibility issues when he first assumed the position. His training predated the institution's entry into the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Although he apparently attended conference seminars and perhaps one NCAA rules seminar during his last 10 years of employment, he consistently misapplied eligibility rules. He trained his successor (who also misapplied the legislation) as well as several of the academic advisors, resulting in a "domino effect" of misinformation. Moreover, several academic advisors stated in their interviews that they came into the program with little or no background regarding the proper application of eligibility standards and were given no formal training. The institution failed to ensure that the certifying officers were adequately trained in NCAA legislation. In the fall of 2002 a more experienced academic advisor was hired. He immediately recognized that academic files of certain student-athletes were incomplete or in some cases contained no documents. An investigation was undertaken in 2003, but it was inadequate and failed to reveal all the eligibility problems. The full scope of the violations was not uncovered for approximately a year, after the NCAA enforcement staff began its own investigation. The failure to have properly trained certification officers or to conduct a thorough investigation into possible rules violations constitutes a lack of institutional control.A member of the ACC, the institution has an enrollment of approximately 16,000 students. The institution sponsors nine men’s and eight women’s intercollegiate sports. This was the institution’s second major infractions case. It previously appeared before the committee in 1989 for a case involving the men’s tennis program.
II. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION.
A. INELIGIBLE PARTICIPATION. [NCAA Bylaws 14.4.3.1, 14.4.3.1.5 and 14.4.3.2]
During the 1998-99 through 2004-05 academic years, the institution misapplied NCAA legislation governing satisfactory progress toward a degree, and as a result, 17 student-athletes competed while ineligible. Specifically:
a. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 1”) competed in 12 contests in the fall of 2001 as a result of the erroneous counting of 17 hours of free elective courses, which were taken during the 2000-01 academic year.
b. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 2”) competed in 10 contests in the fall of 2001 as a result of the erroneous counting of 10 hours of free elective courses, which were taken during the 2000-01 academic year. c. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 3”) competed in three contests in the fall of 1998 as a result of the erroneous counting of 10 hours of free elective courses, which were taken during the 1997-98 academic year.
d. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 4”) competed in 12 contests in the fall of 2000 as a result of the erroneous counting of seven hours of free elective courses, which were taken during the 1999-00 academic year.
e. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 5”) competed in 11 contests in the fall of 2001 and 13 contests during the fall of 2002 as a result of the erroneous counting of 12 hours (six hours each academic year) of free elective courses, which were taken during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic years.
f. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 6”) competed in 12 contests in the fall of 1998 and 12 contests in the fall of 1999 as a result of the erroneous counting of 24 hours of free elective courses, which were taken during the 1997-98 (12 hours) and 1998-99 (12 hours) academic years.
g. A women’s track student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 7”) competed in three indoor track meets in the spring of 2004 and four outdoor track meets in the spring of 2004 as a result of the erroneous counting of 18 hours of non-degree applicable courses, which were taken during the 2002-03 academic year.
h. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 8”) competed in 12 contests in the fall of 2001 as a result of the erroneous counting of nine hours of free elective courses, which were taken during the 2000-01 academic year.
i. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 9”) competed in 11 contests in the fall of 2002 as a result of the erroneous counting of six hours of free elective courses, which were taken during the 2001-02 academic year.
j. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 10”) competed in 11 contests in the fall of 2004 as a result of the erroneous counting of three hours of a free elective course, which was taken during the 2001-02 academic year.
a. A women’s track student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 11”) competed in seven cross country meets in the fall of 2000 as a result of the incorrect counting of a “D” grade earned in a math course. The course was taken during the 1999-00 academic year.
b. A men’s track student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 12”) competed in five indoor track meets and nine outdoor track meets during the 2000-01 academic year as a result of the incorrect counting of a “D” grade earned in a math course. The course was taken during the 1999-00 academic year. Student-athlete 12 also competed in six indoor track meets and eight outdoor track meets during the 2001-02 academic years as a result of the incorrect counting of two “D” grades earned in a math course and a physics course. The courses were taken during the 2000-01 academic year.
c. A women’s swimming student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 13”) competed in five swimming meets during the fall of 2001 as a result of the incorrect counting of a “D” grade earned in a math course. The course was taken during the 2000-01 academic year.
d. A men’s track student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 14”) competed in six indoor track meets and nine outdoor track meets during the 2001-02 academic year as a result of the incorrect counting of a “D” grade earned in a math course. The course was taken during the 2000-01 academic year.
e. A men’s track student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 15”) competed in five indoor track meets and seven outdoor track meets during the 1999-00 academic year as a result of the incorrect counting of a “D” grade earned in a math course. The course was taken during the 1998-99 academic year. Student-athlete 15 also competed in five indoor track meets and nine outdoor track meets during the 2001-02 academic year as a result of the incorrect counting of three “D” grades earned in two math courses and a major course. The courses were taken during the 2000-01 academic year. f. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 16”) competed in four contests in the fall of 1999 as a result of the incorrect counting of a “D” grade earned in a math course. The math course was taken during the 1998-99 academic year.
a. Student-athlete 2 competed in 10 contests during the fall of 2001 although he had not met the 50 percent requirement as a management major entering his fourth year of collegiate enrollment.
b. Student-athlete 6 competed in 12 contests during the fall of 1999 although he had not met the 75 percent requirement as a history, technology and society major entering his fifth year of collegiate enrollment.
c. Student-athlete 15 competed in five and three indoor track meets, and nine and 10 outdoor track meets during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years, respectively, although he had not met the 50 and 75 percent requirements as a textile and fiber engineering major entering his fourth and fifth year of collegiate enrollment.
d. A football student-athlete (henceforth, “student-athlete 17”) competed in 12 contests during the fall of 2000 although he had not met the 75 percent requirement as a management major entering his fifth year of collegiate enrollment.
The enforcement staff and the institution agreed with the facts and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The committee finds that the violations occurred.
Regarding Finding II-A-1, the institution’s academic advisors and registrar improperly counted too many electives toward the credit-hour requirements of NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1. As a result, 10 student-athletes over six years were given credit for courses that could not be counted toward their degrees. The certification officers did not take into consideration whether the student-athletes had already taken the maximum allowable number of electives for their degrees.
Regarding Finding II-A-2, the institution reported six instances wherein a grade of “D” was used for satisfactory progress purposes when a grade of “C” or better was needed before a student could receive credit for the class. Finally, the institution discovered that the four student-athletes identified in Finding II-A-3 were allowed to participate even though they had not reached the necessary percentage-of-degree requirements. Two of these situations were the result of student-athletes being given degree credit for too many electives (Finding II-A-1) and another situation resulted from a student-athlete being given degree credit for a “D” in a class in which it was necessary to achieve a “C” (Finding II-A-2).
B. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. [NCAA Constitution 2.1, 2.81 and 6.01]
The institution violated the principles of institutional control and rules compliance in that (1) the institution’s certifying officer of student-athlete eligibility did not receive sufficient training in a particular area of certification, which resulted in a misapplication of the rules; (2) the institution’s athletics academic advising staff, which had the responsibility of advising student-athletes as to which courses to take in order to maintain eligibility under NCAA satisfactory-progress legislation, did not receive a sufficient amount of initial and continuing education to perform this function and, therefore, the initial actions in the certification process on which the certifying officer based his/her analysis were incorrect; and (3) in July 2003, when the institution’s athletics administration became aware of problems related to student-athletes’ satisfactory progress toward degrees, the institution undertook an inadequate review of this issue. Specifically:
During at least the 1998-99 through 2003-04 academic years, the institution chose to use its registrar as the chief certifying officer of student-athlete eligibility. While this choice was not in and of itself a problem, the institution failed to monitor the certifying officer’s understanding of the eligibility rules and ability to effectively perform the checks or balances within this process. As a result, the registrar failed to correctly apply NCAA satisfactory-progress legislation; and consequently, numerous student-athletes competed while ineligible as noted in Finding II-A.
During at least the 1998-99 through 2003-04 academic years, the institution chose to use its athletics academic advising staff to advise student-athletes as to which courses they needed to take in order to maintain eligibility under NCAA satisfactory-progress legislation. While this choice was not in and of itself a problem, the institution failed to monitor the academic advisors’ continuing understanding of eligibility rules and ability to perform these functions properly. Consequently, this staff erroneously advised numerous student-athletes to take too many free electives; and as a result, the student-athletes failed to maintain their eligibility under NCAA satisfactory-progress legislation, as noted in Finding II-A.
During the summer of 2003, the institution’s athletics administration became aware that the registrar and athletics academic advising staff had misunderstood NCAA satisfactory-progress legislation and that some current and former student-athletes may have competed while ineligible. In July 2003, prior to the annual certification of student-athletes, the president and the athletics director made the decision to review the entire academic record of those student-athletes with eligibility remaining for the 2003-04 academic year. Either the director of athletics or senior associate director of athletics orally issued the directive to the director of academic services for the academic staff. In August 2003, during its annual certification of student-athlete eligibility, the athletics administration chose not to review past records to determine whether the institution had allowed ineligible student-athletes to compete. The end result of this review was that no student-athletes were found to have competed while ineligible. The athletics administration, in concurrence with the ACC, decided that the review was sufficient. Thus, the institution was only concerned with the proper certification of eligibility on a “going-forward” basis. As a result of the review not being as thorough as initially directed, violations concerning the ineligible participation of 17 student-athletes, as noted in Finding II-A, remained undetected until the fall of 2004, after the NCAA enforcement staff had begun its own investigation.
Committee Rationale
The enforcement staff and the institution agreed with the facts and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. However, the institution did not agree that the facts constitute a lack of institutional control as alleged by the enforcement staff. The committee finds that the violations occurred and that institutional control was lacking.
As set forth in part one of this report (the Introduction), the certification process began with the compliance coordinator, who signed the certification forms after checking each student-athlete’s years of participation and amount of financial aid. The forms were forwarded to the academic advisors, who checked all satisfactory progress criteria before they too signed off that each student-athlete was eligible. The forms next went to the registrar, who was the individual ultimately responsible for certifying continuing eligibility. The final step in the process involved the FAR who also reviewed and signed the forms.
Both individuals who served as registrar during the time frame of the violations were inadequately trained. Registrar 1 held the position from 1968 until the spring of 2000. He received training on eligibility matters from the FAR at the time of his hiring, 30 years before the first violation in this case. From his hiring in 1968 until sometime in the 1990’s, he did not attend educational seminars even though NCAA eligibility legislation was rapidly evolving. However, even then he did not regularly attend the educational seminars. According to the institution’s response, his schedule often conflicted with the times of the seminars.
His successor (henceforth, “Registrar 2”) assumed the role in 2000. Registrar 2 was trained by her predecessor and has attended NCAA rules seminars every year, but the FAR did not have a role in her rules education. She acknowledged that she misapplied NCAA satisfactory progress legislation and that she did not understand that all 24 hours earned annually must be degree-applicable. Registrar 2 indicated that her predecessor did not accurately explain the bylaws to her when she succeeded him and that she never realized she misunderstood the rules. In the committee’s view, the institution’s failure to ensure that its primary eligibility certification officers received continuing education and were knowledgeable about NCAA legislation necessary to properly exercise their responsibilities constitutes a non-debatable example of a lack of institutional control.
The institution compounded its shortcomings by failing to adequately train the academic advisors who were responsible for advising student-athletes about the courses to take in order to satisfy continuing-eligibility requirements. Registrar 1 trained a number of the advisors, but as has been previously discussed, he misapplied certain NCAA rules and provided faulty education. Six present or former members of the academic advising staff were interviewed in 2004. All of them stated that they had received little or no training upon being hired and that for the most part, they depended on fellow advisors to guide them. They were given NCAA manuals and institutional catalogs but no official training. When interviewed, some indicated that they knew they lacked expertise regarding advising and eligibility certification and that they needed more education. As stated by the president during the hearing, the institution did not have institutional controls in place to prevent these infractions. The failure of the institution to provide initial and continuing training to the advisors demonstrates a second series of instances that constitute a lack of institutional control.
Finally, the institution failed to properly investigate when potential problems in the certification system came to light. In July 2003, the compliance director received a confirmation from the ACC office regarding the correct application of NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1.5 (Hours Earned or Accepted for Degree Credit). It was determined that the institution had been misapplying the rule. Either the director of athletics or a senior associate director of athletics orally told the director of academic services to “review the academic records of all student-athletes who had eligibility remaining for the 2003-04 academic year.” The director of athletics stated that his desire was that the complete records of all current student-athletes be analyzed. The director of academic services was new to his position and had not previously worked in athletics advising. After a meeting with either the director of athletics or the senior associate director of athletics, he understood that he was not to look at the records of any student-athletes who were no longer at the institution nor was he to review the records of present student-athletes back further than one year because the institution was “go[ing] forward” and was not going to “look back.” Members of the advising staff were of the same impression, with two reporting that they understood the directive to be that they were to look back one year but no further. Another reported that he was told specifically by the director of academic services and the senior associate director of athletics to certify only those student-athletes who were on the squad lists at that time.
The initial review was incomplete and failed to uncover all the misapplications of NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1.5, resulting in the violations set forth in Finding II-A remaining undetected. When the NCAA investigation began in March 2004, there was still confusion among institutional personnel regarding the scope of the violations. Approximately four months later, while completing an NCAA survey involving the 1997 cohort, an academic advisor noted further potential certification problems. Only then was a comprehensive records review undertaken of all records from the past four years and all the violations uncovered. The failure of the institution to fully investigate the matter when indications of possible certification problems arose in 2003 constitutes a third instance of lack of institutional control.
III. PENALTIES.
For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation associated with a breakdown of the eligibility certification process and an associated lack of institutional control. While the committee felt that the institution’s self-imposed penalties were meaningful, the fact remains that the institution obtained a substantial competitive advantage through the large number of prominent student-athletes who competed for several years while ineligible. The seriousness of this case was also heightened by findings of several instances of a lack of institutional control. In light of these factors, the committee determined that additional penalties were warranted as follows: (Note: The institution’s corrective actions are contained in Appendix Two.)
A. Public reprimand and censure.
B. Two years of probation from November 17, 2005, through November 16, 2007. (The institution had self-imposed one year of probation).
C. Initial grants-in-aid in the sport of football shall be reduced by six for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. Additionally, the institution shall be limited to no more than 79 total football grants-in-aid for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years. (Note: The institution self-imposed the loss of six initial grants for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. However, since the institution was at or near the maximum number of grants-in-aid for the 2005-06 season even with their self-imposed limit, the committee determined that in order for the penalty to have any validity, overall grants should also be reduced).
D. Grants-in-aid in the sport of men’s track and field shall be reduced by a total of 3.90 over the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. (This penalty was self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee as its own).
E. Grants-in-aid in the sport of women’s track and field shall be reduced by a total of 2.0 over the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. (This penalty was self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee as its own). (Note: The reduction in grants-in-aid listed in paragraphs C, D and E is independent of any reduction that may be imposed by the Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) either as a historical or contemporaneous penalty. In consequence, should any such CAP penalties be imposed, the grants-in-aid reductions must be taken from the maximum grants-in-aid available to the institution AFTER those reductions.)
F. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2 the institution shall vacate the performance of its football team for all contests during the football seasons in which student-athletes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17 competed while ineligible.
G. Student-athletes 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 competed while ineligible in the individual sports of track and field and swimming. The points they contributed to team totals while ineligible shall also be vacated and team totals reconfigured as set forth in paragraph (H) immediately below.
H. In administering the vacation of records specified in paragraphs F and G, all team results from any competition in which the aforementioned student-athletes participated while ineligible, as well as the records of the head coaches in those sports at the time the violations occurred, shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records/results. The reconfigured records shall be included in all publications in which records and performances are referenced, including but not limited to media guides, internet websites, recruiting materials, university and NCAA archives. Finally, any public reference to any team performance that includes a vacated result shall be removed, including but not limited to athletic department stationary and banners displayed in public areas such as venues in which the affected teams compete.
I. Per NCAA Bylaw 31.2.2.4, the institution acknowledged that it permitted student-athletes to participate in NCAA championships/bowl games who were declared ineligible subsequent to these competitions. The institution has self-imposed a $5,000 fine payable to the NCAA for these violations. The committee accepts this self-imposed penalty and adopts it as its own.
J. During this period of probation, the institution shall:
Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition;
Submit a preliminary report to the office of the NCAA Committees on Infractions by January 15, 2006, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and
File with the office of the Committees on Infractions annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by September 15 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on adequate training of all personnel with responsibility continuing eligibility determinations. The reports must also include documentation of the institution’s compliance with the penalties adopted and imposed by the committee.
K. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution’s president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution’s current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regula¬tions.
Should Georgia Tech appeal either the findings of viola¬tions or penalties in this case to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, the Com¬mittee on Infractions will submit a response to the members of the appeals committee.
Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penal¬ties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA legislative bodies directly or indirectly modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties.
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Edward (Ted) Leland Gene A. Marsh, chair Andrea L. Myers James Park Jr. Josephine R. Potuto Thomas E. YeagerAPPENDIX ONE
CASE CHRONOLOGY.
2004
February 27 – The director of athletics at the institution received a phone call from an associate director of enforcement for the NCAA, regarding possible rules violations.
August 24 – The institutions self-report was submitted.
2005
January 5 – A notice of inquiry letter was sent to the institution.
May 24 – The summary disposition report was reviewed by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions and the institution and enforcement staff were notified that the summary disposition report was rejected.
June 1 – The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations to the institution.
August 8 – The institution submitted its response to the notice of allegations.
August 24 – The institution and the enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference.
September 16 – The institution appeared before the Division I Committee on Infractions.
November 17 – Infractions Report No. 238 is released.
APPENDIX TWO
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
Letters of reprimand were given to all individuals who are still employed in athletics or in the registrar’s office at the institution.
Personnel Changes
The individual hired possesses the qualities necessary to perform the task of certifying student-athletes. Specifically, this person has worked in a compliance office at a Division I institution, and currently works in the institution’s registrar’s office processing degree petitions for the entire undergraduate student body. While working in a compliance office, this individual was responsible for conducting rules education sessions and assisting in the certification process.
Certification of Eligibility
The institution will strengthen the lines of communications between the athletics association and the academic departments. Specifically, documentation will now be required from the academic departments to verify which courses taken can be used to meet progress-toward-degree requirements. These forms will be included in the certification process. The existing certification forms will be included in the certification process. The existing certification forms will be revised to make certain that all aspects of eligibility are being reviewed appropriately. The FAR will continue to sign off on the certification forms verifying that the proper process was completed.
The certifying officer will not certify a student-athlete until all forms have been completed; supporting documentation received and verified; and all questions and/or concerns have been resolved by the certifying officer and the FAR.
A computer program has been developed that will automate the certification of student-athletes. This program will be fully operational prior to the start of the fall 2005 semester.
The institution has already requested that the ACC conduct a compliance review for eligibility procedures in one-year and will submit to these reviews annually until the administration is completely confident with the certification process.
Checks and Balances
Improvements will be made to the certification process to ensure that the checks and balances system in place will be effective. Specifically, a monitoring system will be implemented through the academic office within the athletics association and the certifying officer. Separate calculations to determine eligibility will be performed by the academic advisors within the athletics association and the certifying officer. A student-athlete will not be certified until both parties have agreed on all aspects of certification of eligibility, with the certifying officer making the ultimate decision.
The institution will require internal auditors to conduct academic audits of randomly selected student-athletes on an annual basis. These individuals will be properly trained to perform such tasks.
Education Efforts
The institution will mandate that the registrar and assistant registrar attend the NCAA Rules Seminar on an annual basis.
The institution’s athletics association will mandate that the director of academic services, all academic advisors/staff and all compliance staff attend either the NCAA Rules Seminar or the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics (N4A) meetings on an annual basis.
The academic staff and the certifying officer will continually receive rules updates on eligibility legislation from the director of compliance. Additionally, the compliance office will conduct regular rules education sessions with all individuals involved in the certification process.
The individuals involved in the certification process will not be permitted to certify student-athletes until they have demonstrated a complete knowledge of NCAA, conference and instruction rules. Specifically, each individual involved will be required to take and pass an eligibility exam on an annual basis.
By Really
September 24, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Because computers don’t play football fsujd. If they did and it meant something GT would have been screwed out of their NC when they lost that computer game. Personally, that year I think Tech could of won a game between them and Colorado.
By College Sports Fan
September 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
The ACC shouldn’t even be a BCS conference.
Drop it and replace it with the WAC.
Nobody cares about the impotent ACC conference.
By Lucky1
September 24, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
Larry,
Can you provide more insight related to the players, coaches, upcoming opponents etc…? I would enjoy learning more about the team and the direction of the team as opposed to answering questions. Thanks.
By GT45
September 24, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
See what I mean?
By CGA
September 24, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
The UGA fans don’t like to hear about academic standards. The concept of a “student-athlete” is foreign to them. It’s all about football. Check out the statistics on how many “Special Admits” that UGA allows for football players compared to Georgia Tech and you will see that the playing field is far from level. Based on the most recent statistics available, a whopping 94 percent of UGA football players are “special admits”, students admitted through exceptions to the normal entrance requirements. Only one other school, California, ranked higher with 95% of football players who are special admits. Georgia Tech, on the other hand, had only 9 percent with a special admit to the school. How do you think UGA would fare in recruiting and remaining competitive on the football field if they to comply with those standards? Don’t tell me they do it to compete with the other SEC schools because only LSU comes even close to UGA in the special admit category.
SEC UGA - 94% LSU - 82% KEN - 64& ALA - 21% FL - 18% AUB - 12% Mississippi St - 0% South Carolina and Tennessee didn’t respond or would not provide information.
ACC
FL ST - 65% NC ST - 25% GA Tech - 9% UNC - 0% UVA - 0%
So UGA fans, don’t talk about your high academic standards and how tough it is to get in your school. It’s quite easy if you can run and throw a football well!
By PROUDTECHFAN
September 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
Here’s my theory…
What is happening in college football is the same thing that happens in every sport at some time or another. At some point the tide will turn and at some point even the traditionally stronger teams of the past will go through a down period. ex. Nebraska,Miami,FSU etc. Yes the SEC is the stronger and better conference today and I will go out on a limb to say and many years to come. But at some point, SEC fans, your dominance will subside and some other conference will take over as the superior conference. History has proven it and there is nothing you can do about it. Lets look at the ACC. Now the arguement is that the ACC is a weak conference mainly because Miami and FSU has fallen off. VA Tech has been consistent, im not ready to say they’ve fallen off because they lost to E.Carolina. They are still a top football program, and will be in the top 25 very soon. Another reason people argue the ACC is weak is because Wake Forest has emerged as a legitimate contender for the past 3-4 years. I say “hell” it has nothing to do with the conference being weak, maybe they are just that good. As a Ga Tech fan I wouldnt want to play them every year. And I’m glad we dont have to. Jim Grobe is one of the best in-game coaches in the country. I know its hard to make a case for Duke today, but I will say this, they have suddenly started to take interest in the game of football, and i honestly believe they will be much better in the years to come. As a matter of fact you can already see improvement. Boston College I believe was hit with a ton of inexperience this year but will be back soon. And the sky is the limit for my YellowJackets as long as CPJ sticks around.
GO JACKETS!!!
By jabster
September 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
CD:
Have you ever heard of a “hyperlink”? Don’t blame that on me.
Also, I wrote “It’s one thing to make an honest mistake. Nobody was trying to pull a fast one at Tech, and I challenge you to prove that we did. Certainly not on the order of deliberately asking “student”-athletes how many points they get for a 3-pointer, or deliberately pressuring profs (Jan Kemp) to pass failing athletes. You can’t fob those off as “accidents”.”
Can you cite ONE instance in your post where GT committed a willful, knowing, and deliberate act to violate NCAA rules?
No, the fact that we made a mistake doesn’t erase the fact that it happened. Not trying to. But intent counts for a lot. That’s the difference between murder one, a capital felony, and involuntary manslaughter, a misdemeanor.
By CD
September 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this
Only a total idiot can believe that for 7 years this thing went undetected. The rule applied to progress toward a degree was crystal clear. Larry New was well aware of what was going on and made sure that those he trained stayed unaware. The lawsuit filed by the whistle blower fired by the Athletic Department for questioning what was going on made it clear that not only did Tech know what was going on, but made a concious effort to conceal it from the NCAA. Only after the NCAA started their own investigation did the full extent of the cheating come to light. The court case is even more revealing than the NCAA investigation. Tech athletes are no smarter or required to do any more than any other athlete at any other school. You, jabster just need an excuse for losing. Now tell us how hard Joe Hamilton worked at his calculus classes you moron. Be a man jabster. Lose like a man and not like some whiney little panty wearing bit%h, no matter how out of character that might be for you. Your team has not been very good and academics has not one damn thing to do with it.
By Kenny
September 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this
Go to hell jabster. You know good and well that these guys knew the rules. It’s really a stretch to believe otherwise. Obviously the NCAA wasn’t buying that for 7 years these guys didn’t catch something so obvious. The penalty handed out by the NCAA shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they knew exactly what Tech was trying to get away with. A lawsuit filed about this thing contained evidence that it was pointed out to Larry New and the person pointing it out got fired. Tech was dirty jabster. Real dirty. I wonder how many regular students at Tech got credit for progress with Ds instead of Cs. I bet that number is 0.
By Get a Grip
September 24, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this
Does it surprise anyone that that mess started under that POS George O’Leary? Obviously jabster shares some character traits/flaws with the O’Liar.
By GTandProud
September 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this
jabster it is a stretch to believe it wasn’t systematic when in 1 case the player had 50% of the guy’s courses over a 2 year period were free electives and another was more than a 3rd. Come on jabster. If you were ever a Tech student you know that even the most inexperienced academic advisor could catch that. The personnel in the compliance section of an Athletic Department are paid to know those things inside and out. The stakes are too high not to be right on top of those things. And we can say it was an oversight all day long. Basically say, we are all a bunch of incompetent know nothings here in the AD. We are to the man a bunch of idiots that can’t do our jobs. That might have been the defense jabster, but anybody with half a functioning brain knows that just can’t be.
By AlabamaRamblinwreck
September 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Link to this
GT Ba-ROCKS!:
I cannot believe I am answering a blog on the GT site about the election, but here goes:
I would take the Palin family all day over your elitist, hateful, over-educated by socialist liberals, abortion promoting,socialism-promoting, faith-hating, value-hating and traditional family-hating group of liberals….. Education at an elite school does not make you a great leader. Being brought up in the Chicago political machine does not make you a great leader. Registering unqualified voters does not make you a great leader. Barack had a chance to show his integrity and leadership when he could have stood by his word on campaign financing, but that changed when the circumstances changed. He made the decision based on what was best for him, not standing on his word.
You are a great leader because you are a great leader. You have integrity and you protect innocent life. You make right decisions, not just decisions based on Polls and what is best for ME!! McCain and Palin are great leaders. Nuff said.
GO JACKETS!!
By Rob Telmus
September 24, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this
I for one believe jabster is right. That the entire GT athletic department was top to bottom so stupid that the most important department in the place, compliance, screwed up like that comes as no surprise to me. Maybe the “we’re incompetent idiots here at GT” is not just a defense, but reality. So I believe you jabster.
By jabster
September 24, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this
CD:
Do you like playing with sockpuppets? Nice try.
By GTandProud
September 24, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this
You’re an idiot jabster. I bet you never attended one class at GT. You’re too damn stupid. You let them set you up as the fool and then validated it. I bet the dog ate your homework a lot too huh moron.
By gt fan
September 24, 2008 7:04 PM | Link to this
hey reagan….
your candidate didnt study for his test on friday eh? he cant multitask? maybe its that fact he cant chew gum an walk at the same time.
or maybe he is still thinking about the 150 men he killed on the US Forrestal by his failed ‘wet start’ prank. do we really want a man in the white house who plays killer pranks?
notice that unlike the pubs and the swift boating of kerry the dems left that alone out of respect.
and we wont even ask mcbush how many lobbyists he has on his ‘country first’ campaign. last count was his main guy an 22 others worked as the top lobbyists in the country including for sally mae and freddy mac. davis his campaign advisor is still recieving 13k a month from sally mae for doing nothing. hmmmm.
is anybody here old enough to remember the savings an loan failure? mcbush was censured for his ‘personal’ involvement in that crisis too. i guess you cant teach an old dog new ethics.
in his acceptance speach, mcbush stated…’i learned to love my country when i was inprisoned in another’. huh? so tell me what he thought of this country BEFORE he was imprisoned. kinda like all those guys in prison who suddenly find the lord.
and i am certain that mcbush was thinking of country first when he passed over mitt romney (an expert in the economy) for a country bumpkin that compares herself to a pig.
this is a lady who doesnt believe in science. a lady who believes the universe is 5000 years old. a lady who rolls in the aisles at church. a woman who speaks in tongues. a lady who swoons when a black man from kenya lays his hands on her. a woman who beleives in witch hunts. she is vindictive. she has fired long time public servants in alaska an surrounded herself with loyal no experience lackeys she went to high school with. wonder if any of them stayed at a holiday inn express last nite too? a lady who reminds most political insiders of cheney with t*ts.
yeah that works for me. he certainly thought of this country first when he picked her over mitt romney. soooooeeeeeeeeee pig pig pig.
fact… ceo to worker pay was at a ratio of 40 to 1 40 years ago. now that ratio is about 280 to 1.
couple that fact with the idea that most rich folks hide their money in off shore accounts and that most companies are now sending jobs overseas and that trickle down theory is pure hogwash.
but hey the economy is sound and american companies love american workers… according to john mcbush.
fact… the pubs have not only controlled congress for most of those 40 years but they have held the office of the presidency for 28 of those years.
yet they have the gaul to blame dems for the issues we have now.
and john mcbush was part of that good ol boy network for 27 of those years.
you can fool me once an shame on YOU. you can fool me twice and shame on me.
By stray dog
September 24, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this
CD, did you change you name from BuLLdog?
You politics guys are really boring…both sides!
By gt fan
September 24, 2008 7:32 PM | Link to this
hey AlabamaRamblinwreck if i had YOUR common sense and if i was as gullible as you i would never ever ever post anywhere ever. maybe your just stupid.
politicalfactchecker.comfound that palin lied at least 19 times in her first 3 days. nice.
mccain a leader? he has flip flopped so many times this week alone that he is dizzy. maybe he should dye his hair blonde. he has said we need to fire 2-3 different guys than changed his mind. he has said we need to form a committe than he says oops we need to address this issue now. he has said the ecomony is sound and now we are in a crisis. that is only the flip flops i rememvber off the top of my head. he flip flops HOURLY.
tell me how many food stamps obama the elitest used while growing up. that you would call a man who put himself through school an illetist yet praise a man who own 9 homes…. and cant remember them all as grounded shows how wacked you are.
a personal friend of mcbush said that mcbush is the biggest illetist in congress. he thinks he is a rock star. they showed footage to back that up btw.
your just like the rest of the all those hypocritical republicans. when they say ‘country first’ they really mean republicans first.
like a number of republicans on another blog said… ‘greed is good’.
that is the real republican mantra.
By Sam
September 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Link to this
McCain by a field goal.
By blackprix
September 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this
There are a bunch of NEW coaches in the ACC and it takes time to build your own programs. That’s what we are seeing early on.
What I do believe is these same coaches are and will make this conference better.
Let’s keep playing and see where the ACC is towards the end of the year … improved is my guess.
By blackprix
September 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this
There are a bunch of NEW coaches in the ACC and it takes time to build your own programs. That’s what we are seeing early on.
What I do believe is these same coaches are and will make this conference better.
Let’s keep playing and see where the ACC is towards the end of the year … improved is my guess.
By blackprix
September 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this
There are a bunch of NEW coaches in the ACC and it takes time to build your own programs. That’s what we are seeing early on.
What I do believe is these same coaches are and will make this conference better.
Let’s keep playing and see where the ACC is towards the end of the year … improved is my guess.
By GTforever
September 24, 2008 8:40 PM | Link to this
If you play college football the big prize comes when you make the NFL. Over the last three years the ACC leads in that area with 115 pros. The SEC is NOT FIRST. Just ask a college football player” Which would you rather do play in a tough College conference or the PROS.” I think you would get the same answer every time. Although the SEC probably pays their players also. ACC #1
By holy crap
September 24, 2008 8:46 PM | Link to this
I am a huge GT fan. Right now, I hate most of you on here. Great job of making us look like losers guys.
Kudos
By Denver Dawg
September 24, 2008 9:14 PM | Link to this
The ACC and GT suck like my Oreck. The SEC is the strongest conference in the college football. There is no debate to be had here. Go back to working for me.
By InquiringMind
September 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Link to this
How does Tech stack up against UGA in that NFL player thing GTforever? And you did a good job cherry picking the last 3 years. The SEC leads the ACC in total players in the NFL by far. Nice try. One thing is for sure though. With that offense at GT there won’t be many skill players from Tech gracing NFL rosters anytime soon.
By Green
September 24, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this
its too early in the season to talk about how good a conference is or isn’t. three or four games is not enough time….. the reason every1 is still bashing the ACC is b/c of their recent play over the last few years, and their not so hot start against the SEC this year.
lets wait till bowl season to see how each conference fairs. sec has an advantage over acc right now because of past seasons, great coaches, and consistently solid recruiting. lots of people keep saying the acc is all young talent and will be amazing in the next few years. that may be, but the sec has just as many young players waiting for their chance to start.
By ThanksGTforever
September 24, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this
The Southeastern Conference placed 259 of its former players on the 2008 National Football League opening weekend active rosters, leading all NCAA conferences.
The SEC had five of the top 12 schools on NFL opening day rosters. Georgia was the SEC’s leading squad and was third overall with 36 of its former players listed on NFL rosters, followed by LSU with 35, Tennessee at 34, Florida with 30 and Auburn with 27. Miami (Fla.) led all schools with 44 former players on NFL rosters, followed by Florida State with 37. The SEC has led the nation in the number of players on opening weekend rosters since 2001.
The 12 SEC schools were in the top 64 among all colleges. Alabama was sixth in the SEC with 18, followed by Arkansas and Mississippi State with 16 each, South Carolina with 15, Ole Miss at 14, Vanderbilt with 10 and Kentucky with eight.
In a breakdown by positions of all college with the most players on 2008 NFL rosters, LSU had the most centers (3) and wide receivers (6), Ole Miss had the most offensive guards (4), Georgia the most tight ends (4), defensive ends (9) and placekickers (2) and Tennessee with most defensive tackles (5).
The NFL Kickoff Weekend numbers were furnished by the National Football League.
Thanks for opening the door for more SEC dominance GTforever. You guys are sooooo easy.
By GM
September 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this
If you’re in college or still in your 20’s and vote democrat, you’ve got a lot of soul. By the time you reach 30, if you’re not a republican then you have no sense. Or, you don’t have any money.
If you make good money or have a lot of assets, why on earth would you vote for wealth re-distribution? I guess what I’m trying to say is that all you liberals on this blog are either broke, or idiots.
By jarvis
September 24, 2008 10:51 PM | Link to this
It won’t be time to stop the ACC bashing until they sell out their own championship game. You guys claim it’s a conference full of good competition, but you won’t even pay to see your two “best” teams play.
By AlabamaRamblinwreck
September 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Link to this
Excellent blog, GM.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I saw the light at 26.
Now I’m 45, and the more I see of these haters, the more I am ashamed that it took me 26 years to get some common sense, which is what Palin has a lot of.
By TheBlogger
September 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Link to this
It is a continual shock to me how SEC fans, who “claim” to be educated somewhat in football, want to base the strength of an entire conference on one game. Or, base it on something they call “invitations” to bowls - especially when bowls mostly have locked in contracts. Or, base it on something like ‘opponents in bowls’ - especially when bowls mostly have locked in contracts. Or, base it on the top teams in a conference and completely ignore the remaining teams. Or, base it on the size of the stadiums. Or, base it on ticket sales.
These SEC fans are just not that smart, are they?
Then again, Tech fans already knew that! :-)
By wow
September 24, 2008 11:22 PM | Link to this
yes thank you jarvis!!! i was going to say that as well. every1 keeps talking about the gt win over miss state…well, i was at the game, and the seats were not full. bobby dodd stadium only holds like < 60,000 people! come on tech fans! show some support for the team other than just online!
By TheBlogger
September 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Link to this
Another amazing thing is how blind some republicans are…
You think Democrats want to ‘redistribute’ wealth? Are you kidding me?
During the republican presidency and republican congress, the most wealthy (top 1% which is not you and me) got much more wealthy while the middle class (likely you and me) got less wealthy. Their economy is designed to redistribute the wealth from the middle class to the top tier wealthy…. not just in the US but also worldwide.
Bush’s friends in Saudia Arabia are raking in the big bucks with the price of oil. And, don’t forget about his oil friends/relatives in Texas.
And, this Wall Street bailout will certainly take middle class tax dollars away and give it to the wealthy Wall Street types. Those CEOs need to keep their golden parachutes, right?
Yeah, yeah, the republicans try to put some spin on it to make it seem like they are “helping” main street. They always do. And, the main street people have gotten the shaft from them each and every time.
Health care reform? Heck no! That would stop putting the big bucks into the insurance companys and the pharmacy companys. Just make the middle class pay more and more for health insurance - that’ll “fix it.”
How many times must the republicans pull the wool over your eyes until you wake up?
I’m not pro-democrat as much as I am anti-republican. During my life time, no republican president term has ever improved the lives of me, my family, or my friends…. in fact, the quality of our lives have gone down in each and every case. And, during their terms, our economy has gotten worse, our national debt has dramatically gone up, and our world reputation and gone down. But, the most wealthy have always gotten more wealthy during their terms.
By jarvis
September 24, 2008 11:33 PM | Link to this
By “top teams” I assume you’re referring to the roughly half of the conference that is ranked in the top 15 in the country?
By jarvis
September 24, 2008 11:41 PM | Link to this
Oh yeah—-Again with the “we’re smart”? OK. We get it. You’re smart. Not very creative nor by and large very socially competent, but I have no problem admitting that as a group Tech grads are generally smarter than average people. Can we move on now?
By YELLOWJACKETS REQUIRED
September 25, 2008 12:13 AM | Link to this
A little history lesson - In 1932 Georgia and Georgia Tech were charter members of the NEW Southeastern Confrence. (When Tech started their football team they were known as the “Blacksmiths”) Tech was a dominant member of the SEC on through 1964 when Tech coach Bobby Dodd started an ongoing feud with then Bama coach Bear Bryant. In those days, Tech “owned” Georgia. Sure we would throw them a bone from time to time, but overall tech kicked UGA’s a$$. In 1964, Tech’s AD and Bobby Dodd decided to drop out of the SEC due to the way Athletes were treated and recruitment issues (Whatever, bama was steadily kicking their butts) - At any rate tech spearheaded the Metro conference for everything but Football. Their plan was to eventually apply for re-instatemnt to the SEC. They remained an independent in the meantime.
When they applied for reinstatement in 1975 they were rejected. That was basically on veto votes from U G A and BAMA. Statements from both schools said - “You left us when things were rough, now things are great and you want back in?, No Go!” In 1979 Tech joined the ACC.
Techs problem is that they have never had any continuity, except in losing. Can’t decide what conference to be in, hiring and firing coaches,(Georgia has played football 100 years longer than Tech and Tech has had twice as many coaches).
The reason people around here bash the ACC is because of Georgia Tech mainly. And also the ACC has always billed itself as a Basket ball conference.
The only teams that make the ACC look competitive in football are Va Tech, FSU and BC. Ga Tech, Wake, Duke, NC and NCState would all be doormats in the SEC or PAC 10. Sure, The ACC has great academics, I hope my kids go to Tech. But if they want to go to a FOOTBALL School, go to the SEC.
By snow dawg
September 25, 2008 12:23 AM | Link to this
Good evening everyone! What the he!! is up with THE BLOGGER? I thought this was a sports blog?
Anyway, for all you BMW (b!tchers, moaners, and whiner)Tech fans….NOBODY is bashing the ACC! Just face the fact that in general your football programs are the worst. When you can put 5 schools in the top ten in football, let us know. When you do that in ANY sport…let us know. Y’all can’t even do it in Basketball.
By GM
September 25, 2008 7:37 AM | Link to this
To TheBlogger: You can’t argue politics so why try? Make a statement and get over it. No one actually reads your long, rambling, political blogs. That’s what “scroll down” is for. So which is it for you: broke, under 30, or just an idiot?
By snapshot
September 25, 2008 7:47 AM | Link to this
Some one once said” Any team can beat any other team on any given day”
By GT45
September 25, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
It’ll all wash out at the end of the season, then we can spend all next spring and summer talking about it-
By bearcasey
September 25, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this
I am amused that before the GT-MSU game, all we heard was how great the SEC-MSU defense was (held Auburn to 3 points.) After GT hung 38 points and 500 yards on them using their second, third and fourth string QB’s, suddenly, MSU becomes a “bottom feeder.”
I could care less about the ACC-SEC debate. GO GT and VANDY.
By oldfaithfuldawg
September 25, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Every team and every conference has and always will have its bashers. The ACC’s only problem is its awful start. Your teams are fine or will be as the year goes along. It’s just difficult to overcome the impression of weakness when you don’t appear prepared to play the first game. Good luck, and GO DAWGS.
By GM=idiot
September 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
for talking politics and calling other Tech fans idiots…
By GM
September 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this
I never called anyone an idiot. Get over it…I gave ‘em 3 choices: broke, under 30, or idiot.
By lisa
September 26, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this
Let’s talk about how the SEC has all those off season arrests, recruits guys with questionable character and how their academics are a joke. Clean all that up and then we will talk about who has the superior conference. I wouldn’t let my dog go to college at an SEC school outside of Vandy (although he could probably get in if he could carry a football) much less my children.
By GM=idiot (still)
September 26, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
.
By DeacinGA
September 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
1) CD definitely has to be an old-school UGA grad who got his diploma tossed in his pickup truck as he drove past campus, otherwise he would have simply provided a link to his tome, instead of cutting & pasting it.
2) While jabster may be doing some wishful thinking about how much the GT academic advisors knew and when, I can confirm that I have seen his GT diploma - it does exist…and a GT diploma is something that 90% of the posters on this thread have never seen in their deluded little lives…and couldn’t read even if they were to catch a glimpse of one.
3) It’s looking like the Vandy/Wake game on 11/29 could be the marquee matchup of the regular season for both the SEC & ACC. I love it!