Dude, I don't mean to pile on, but relax. The ACC is not a great conference. You have a bunch of teams that are within 1-2 games of .500 Getting into a bowl game doesn't take much. You can beat two 1AA teams and then lose 6 out of your next 10 and still make a bowl. Your best team, VT had 3 losses last season- one to James Madison at home. They were DESTROYED by the second best team in the pac 10 in their bowl. (thank you Andrew Luck for the $200 I won) I'm not a pac 10 supporter either- there are a lot of shitty teams in the pac 10. But Their top end talent is so far above the ACC's top teams, it's not even close. And that's with USC in trouble. You keep pulling stats that attempt to support your argument, but just look at the confenence records last year, and the answer is obvious. As for Ayers- you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I wouldn't suggest bashing prospects that we have a chance of taking-- you might end up disappointed! Anyway- go Jets. The draft is one week away!!!
You actually make my arguement for me. Year in and year out the ACC has had more teams in the top 25 then the PAC10 and a higher variety of schools. IMO that makes for a better conference. Granted the top team in the PAC10 year in and out has had a better shot at the National Championship. IMO a better conference has more top program teams then just having the top team. As for the Jets taking players I don't care for: they've done it in the past. Once the Jets select a player I become a fan of his (as long as he remains a Jet). Prior to the last few drafts I really didn't want Sanchez and am glad I have been mistaken about him. When MS was going thru difficult stretches, I never dumped on him other to say at times the "he looked like a deer in the headlights". I was very much against Gholston and Sanatana Moss, but never said I told you so. I really dislike Ayers game. It will make me sick if the Jets select him at #30 (not if they trade down and get him in the middle of the second round). I wouldn't mind Ayers at 30 if Houston, Paea, Taylor and a few others are long gone. If Rex and Tanny select Ayers over the players I prefer, I will become an Ayers fan and will never root for him to fail. For the record, I am not an ACC fan. I played/coached for an SEC school.
cause there are a ton of conferences with four teams why does it matter how many different teams are ranked over a five year period? are you trying to say that the pac 10 is inferior in some way becuase the same teams are consistantly ranked? would it really be a better conference if oregon sucks next year and another pac10 team becomes ranked, thus giving them a higher percentage of different ranked school? i think not if you want to use rankings as an argument, tell me what percentage of each conferences schools are ranked EACH year
It matters how many teams because we are talking about a conference. An entire conference, not a percentage of it. 60% of the PAC10 have been ranked in the top 25 in the last five years compared to 75% of the ACC. It matters because a higher percentage of the top 25 teams come from the ACC compared to the PAC10 most EVERY year. ACC teams play a tougher schedule every year as well. Since 03 (as far back as I looked) the PAC10 has never placed more than 3 teams in the top 25. The ACC has never placed fewer than 3 (usually 4 or 5). In the same time span (last 8 years) the PAC has placed 18 teams in the top 25 for an average of 2.25 per year. During the same period the ACC has placed 30 top 25 finishes for an average of 3.5 a year. Lets use your arguement about the percent of the conference: 2.25 of ten teams is 22.5%. 3.5% of twelve teams is 29.17% So by your own arguement about percentage of ranked teams you as well as I have PROVEN the ACC a superior conference. I will not argue that a top team is more likely to emerge from the PAC, but that doesn't make it a superior conference any more than claiming the NFC is superior because the last two SB champs were NFC teams. It doesn't!
PAC10 is 22.5% ranked on average over the last 8 seasons. (8 was chosen because the source I used only went back as far as 03. ACC has 29.17% ranked over the same time span.
first of all, this isnt my argument, its yours ... all i said was that your argument is flawed, which it still is you keep using an aribtrary number of years for your math, which is manipulating the stats ... instead of lumping together 5 or 8 years, you should be looking at each season on its own and determining what percentage of each conference was ranked THAT year. then your argument would be legit. righ now, youre still fudging numbers
hahaha, i saw how many pages this thread reached and i had to jump in i dig your draft, i think ayers would be a great fit for our D. i love his versitility, people are forgetting how much TEs have raped us over the past few years baily would be a great value in the late third ... i dont know much about the other guys on your list but theyre all at positions of needed depth so thats fine by me
Yes, just keeping changing how this should be argued until you finially hit on one that makes your arguement look right. You asked for percentage of teams making the top 25 since number of teams and variety of teams didn't susport your case. Then I gave you percentage of teams and you were wrong again. AAs for my arbitrary number of years, I wanted to show that 2010 wasn't a fluke and went back as far as the webpage did. I mentioned that in the posting when I explained why I used 8 years. Now you want it year by year. OKAY! In 2010 two PAC10 schools made the top 25. Thats 20% of the conference and 8% of the top 25. In 2010 four ACC teams were in the top 25. That's 33% of the conference and 16% of the top 25. ACC wins again. Lets go back another year to 2009. In 09 one PAC school cracked the top 25 and once again there were four ACC schools. Thats 10% of the PAC in the top 25 and 4% of the top 25. ACC repeats its 33% of the conference and 16% of the top 25. How would you like to work it now in an attempt to make the PAC look better?
I know Chris Weinke and Mike Vick battled out a championship a decade ago, but a lot has changed since then. Over the past 5 seasons, the ACC has has ONE team crack the top 10-- VT. They were 10th in 2009, and 9th in 2007. Two top ten finishes for the ENTIRE CONFERENCE in 5 years. The pac 10 had two in the top 5 this year alone. I love how you made the point that the top teams in the Pac 10 have a better shot at the National Championship, yet you still argue that the ACC is the better conference. I mean seriously, the best team in the Pac 10 went to the championship game this year. The second best team destroyed the best team in the ACC in the bowl game. Their third best team is USC-- one of the best programs of the last 10 years, but happened to be on suspension. Their fourth best team beat a good Nebraska team in their bowl. None of your biased stats will change that. The ACC is clearly not as good a conference a the Pac 10. I don't judge a good conference by the number of "not terrible" teams they have. The ACC has two decent teams, 7 not terrible teams, and 3 shit teams. As for the "variety" of top 25 teams, all that does is prove the medioricity even further. Your best team was 8-0 in the ACC, and 3-3 out of conference. Do I need to mention again that they lost to James Madision? And yes, I would expect the ACC to product more top 25 teams. This year, with USC on suspension, the pac 10 has 9 teams even eligible to be ranked. The ACC has 12. If you think that having Maryland ranked 24th with 4 losses makes the ACC a better conference, then you are incorrect.
Hahhaa yeah right 5 pages? Really? its all good though doesnt matter to me. And thanks man appreciate the feedback. Ayers is a great LB, If youve seen around in the draft forum I defend him 24/7. He is great in coverage, gets to the QB, and help our D with TE's, also a very underrated thing about him is he is exceptional at stopping the run and getting tackles for loss (29.5) over his career in a 4-3 where most of the DE's get the TFL's. Bailey will fall IMO and he's a great replacement for Ellis. Jarret can start for this team although he might not be there at the end of the 4th Then Hurd is a future RG replacement and will work well with Callahan. DeAndre Brown is boom or bust, he could be the next Randy Moss or the next Carlos Rogers. Orie Lemon could be better then Laury and will be a great ST player.
Valid points, but in my opinion clearly wrong in judging a conference and not individual team play. As I said, I don't judge an entire conference only on how the top team performs. If that were the case, PAC10 would be known as the Cheatriot conference since USC was a top ten team when they were caught cheating. That is why USC had its title removed, placed on probation and had a Heisman winner lose his title. Based on your criteria the NFC is a far superior to the AFC since the last two SB winners were NFC teams. I disagree. I think the overall level of play in the AFC was superior despite lsoing those Super Bowls. I am consistant! I judge a conference based on the play of the whole conference. That's all the teams. One or two teams don't make a conference or the PAC would be considered good. As for the VaTech season, yes they lost their first two games including a close loss to James Madison in what was clearly the most embarassing game in the history of the school. Big whoop! They still went on to win the next ten. Everyones entitled to their opinions and I'm glad you aren't behaving like the people you are siding with. I expressed mine. I have defended my opinion without the use of the use of insults as I have endured from E and Chize. I have provided facts, not opinions to defend my opinion. When someone can bring actual facts to prove the entire PAC conference performs better (and not one or two teams per year) then it will be worth continuing. Until then, arguing opinions without substance is absurd.
Dude, I argued with facts too! There are plenty of them up there-- feel free to read them again. You dismissed a loss to JMU by saying "Big Whoop" You are grabbing at straws to make the Pac 10 look worse for USC having recruiting violations. You are coming up with terrible NFL comparasons. Where are your facts? ACC has more top 25 teams? That's not a good argument. The Pac 10 has more top 15 teams. More top 10 teams. More top 5 teams. I didn't judge the ACC on one team- I based it on all of them- just like I did with the Pac 10. I really can't see how you are arguing this. They have similar talent up and down, but the Pac 10 is so much stronger up top, it's not even close.
You judge a conference by its cream, I by the sum of its parts. Based on your criteria, you are correct, but it is a lot closer then you would have us believe. Esp since the cream of the PAC gets to feed on the rest of the PAC. Based on my criteria, you are dead wrong and its obvious. The fact that ACC teams play a tougher schedule year in and out explains why they don't place that one team near the top each year. BTW you are correct the PAC has more top 5, but are wrong they don't have more top 15. You have your opinion, which I do not see supported by facts. I have mine whch you don't see supported by facts. Shall we just agree to disagree without getting into the gutter type brawl other posters enjoy engaging in?
OMG which poll are you using that has more ACC teams in the top 15 than Pac 10? Please send me a link.
the Pac 10 has produced the more dynamic players (its an offensive conference) and been far more relevant lately with FSU, UM, VT, and UNC just now getting their acts together. i do however feel the overall talent level is higher in the ACC looking beyond skill positions, therefore more parody within the conference while Pac has been more dominant when given the chance to play bigger games out of conference recently. i havent been able to follow NCAA as much as usual the last yr or two but this is just the view from a common perspective. either way SEC rules the roost
You are correct. I misread USAPoll thought it said VaTech 14 and FSU 15, when it was 15 and 16. Still according to the AP it had VaTech at 16, FSU at 17, Maryland at 23 and NCST at 25. Didn't see any other PAC school. Yet in 09 AP had VaTech at 10, Ore 11, GaTech 13...followed by no one else from the PAC with Miami at 19 then Clemson at 24. Again I judge a conference by the sum of its parts, not its cream. Its a lot easier to win games against crap teams like the majority of the PAC then the parity of the ACC.
