The Small Schools vs. Big Schools BCS Debate

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Man, you really pick and choose what you want to address. The ACC is a bunch of bottom feeders. One of the teams that plays in the ACC championship game is usually no better than 8-4. That's not any better than the Big 12. Might I add that Texas is ranked and so is Oklahoma St.

Also, I love how you ignored the statistic about the ACC having the WORST record of any of the power conferences in BCS bowl game. They are 2-10 with a winning percentage of .167

Also, only 5 schools have represented the ACC in BCS bowl games. The lowest number of any of the power conferences. That shoots your parity argument in the foot. As a matter of fact, the ACC is so awful, they've never even been offered an at large bid. The only other conference that can make that claim is the Big East, but they've won half their appearances.

You keep bringing up seasons past to illustrate how "good" the ACC is, but dismiss the Big 12 this season and say that the ACC is better when the Big 12 has way more ranked teams in the top 25 and will most likely have more teams at the end of the season.

Good for Florida St, they gave themselves an impossible schedule and will wind up losing many of those games, proving that they aren't all that good. An ACC team thought it would pad its schedule with two cupcakes like Boise and James Madison, guess what? They lost them both.

 

[Big Sexy]

Man, you really pick and choose what you want to address. The ACC is a bunch of bottom feeders. One of the teams that plays in the ACC championship game is usually no better than 8-4. That's not any better than the Big 12. Might I add that Texas is ranked and so is Oklahoma St.

That's fantastic I've already established that more ranked teams does not equal a better conference about 1,000 times.

Also, I love how you ignored the statistic about the ACC having the WORST record of any of the power conferences in BCS bowl game. They are 2-10 with a winning percentage of .167

My bad, you can't seem to get all of your arguments in one post ever. All the BCS bowl game stat proves is that the top team in the ACC is not as good as the top team in the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 10, etc.. One team does not a conference make. I accidentally missed one of your points but now I have debunked it. You still have about 4 or 5 of my points you have yet to address.

Also, only 5 schools have represented the ACC in BCS bowl games. The lowest number of any of the power conferences. That shoots your parity argument in the foot. As a matter of fact, the ACC is so awful, they've never even been offered an at large bid. The only other conference that can make that claim is the Big East, but they've won half their appearances.

The current ACC alignment has only been around for 5 years and in those 5 years 4 different teams have won the conference. That sounds like parity to me. How about 2008 when the ACC had 10 of their 12 teams go to bowl games and all 10 of those teams were either 4-4 or 5-3 in conference play. Sounds like parity to me. Nice try though by once again skewing statistics and bringing irrelevant things into the argument.

You keep bringing up seasons past to illustrate how "good" the ACC is, but dismiss the Big 12 this season and say that the ACC is better when the Big 12 has way more ranked teams in the top 25 and will most likely have more teams at the end of the season.

This isn't Big 12 vs ACC over the last few years and into the future, it is ACC vs MWC. If we're talking about the past, the Big 12 is the better conference then the ACC. If we're talking about this year I believe the ACC has a slightly better conference overall. We'll see how the rest of the season progresses.

Good for Florida St, they gave themselves an impossible schedule and will wind up losing many of those games, proving that they aren't all that good. An ACC team thought it would pad its schedule with two cupcakes like Boise and James Madison, guess what? They lost them both.

1. Florida State already won one of their big non conference games. You know who they played? The supposed third best team in the MWC, BYU. You know what the score was? 34-10.

2. Since when did Boise State become a cupcake? I know schedules are made in advance but Boise has been a very good team for the last 10 years. They've gone 52-4 in their last 56 games over 4+ seasons. Va Tech knew they were getting a tough game.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Last year only 4 Big 12 teams had losing records compared to 5 ACC teams. The ACC only had one school with 10 or more wins. Big 12 had 2.

This year, the Big 12 has 5 schools ranked in the Top 25 and the ACC has one in the Coaches poll.

The Big 12 has 3 schools ranked in the top 25 and the ACC has two in the AP poll.

You're still saying that the ACC is a better conference top to bottom. The ACC had 5 schools last year that finished with 5 wins or fewer. The Big 12 had only 3. The Big 12 sent 8 teams to bowls. The ACC sent 7 teams. The Big 12 went 4-4 in those bowls, including playing the National Championship game with a true freshman. He almost won that game as well. The ACC went 3-4.

Last year and this year the Big 12 is better than the ACC.

Top to bottom conference, my ass. Almost half the ACC didn't even win more than 5 games last year. You clearly are delusional about what you think makes a "good" conference.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

That's fantastic I've already established that more ranked teams does equal a better conference about 1,000 times.

So, it does make for a better conference if you have more ranked teams or it doesn't. You've previously said it doesn't? Now you're saying it does? Which is it? You're the only sports fan in the world who honestly believes that more ranked teams doesn't make one conference better than the others.

If you actually DO believe that more ranked teams means a better conference (which common sense should tell you that it does), then the ACC is equal to the MWC and the WAC in one poll, and worse than them in another poll. The ACC is clearly worse than the Big 12 in either bowl.

My bad, you can't seem to get all of your arguments in one post ever. All the BCS bowl game stat proves is that the top team in the ACC is not as good as the top team in the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 10, etc.. One team does not a conference make. I accidentally missed one of your points but now I have debunked it. You still have about 4 or 5 of my points you have yet to address.

Translation: The best the ACC has to offer has been beaten by every other conference and at large teams all but two times. Your best is nowhere near as good as everyone else's best.

So basically what you're saying is that the top team in the ACC is worse than any other power conference and at large teams, that's what we have been saying all along. I'd like to thank you for finally admitting it.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Also, last year in both the MWC and the WAC 56% of their teams had winning records. Compared to 58% in the ACC. Factor in that they have 3 more teams than both conferences and you'll find that that they were basically equal in terms winning percentage.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Just going to jump in here once again. You guys keep going. Good stuff.

Winning percentage? That doesn't make a good conference, ACC teams played much tougher teams than anything that the MWC or WAC ever thought about playing. Now win-loss percentage against other conferences would be what to look at, I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I'd bet on the ACC having a tougher schedule with the winning percentage they have compared to the MWC and WAC.

 

[Big Sexy]

Last year only 4 Big 12 teams had losing records compared to 5 ACC teams. The ACC only had one school with 10 or more wins. Big 12 had 2.

This year, the Big 12 has 5 schools ranked in the Top 25 and the ACC has one in the Coaches poll.

The Big 12 has 3 schools ranked in the top 25 and the ACC has two in the AP poll.

You're still saying that the ACC is a better conference top to bottom. The ACC had 5 schools last year that finished with 5 wins or fewer. The Big 12 had only 3. The Big 12 sent 8 teams to bowls. The ACC sent 7 teams. The Big 12 went 4-4 in those bowls, including playing the National Championship game with a true freshman. He almost won that game as well. The ACC went 3-4.

Last year and this year the Big 12 is better than the ACC.

Top to bottom conference, my ass. Almost half the ACC didn't even win more than 5 games last year. You clearly are delusional about what you think makes a "good" conference.

Can you please actually read my posts. I said THIS YEAR I believe the ACC will have the better overall conference by a slight margin then the Big 12. Rankings in week 4 really mean jack shit. Most of those rankings are still based on where the teams were projected in the pre season. Texas has not played well enough to be a top 25 team but because they started at 7 they are still ranked.

So, it does make for a better conference if you have more ranked teams or it doesn't. You've previously said it doesn't? Now you're saying it does? Which is it? You're the only sports fan in the world who honestly believes that more ranked teams doesn't make one conference better than the others.

That was a 2 AM typo. I've stated everywhere else that it does not equate for a better conference and that is the truth. More ranked teams does not automatically equal a better conference and that is a fact. especially when we are only in week 4. If this was the end of the season your point would be slightly more credible but now it really means jack shit. Right now the WAC has as many ranked teams as the ACC but if you think the WAC is on equal footing with them then this debate is over because you've proven yourself to be a complete dumb ass when it comes to college football knowledge. I don't care that the MWC has a couple higher ranked teams then the ACC, that is only TWO teams. Their conference has 9 teams. This really is a simple concept that you are absolutely failing to grasp.

Translation: The best the ACC has to offer has been beaten by every other conference and at large teams all but two times. Your best is nowhere near as good as everyone else's best.

Translation- The ACC in the past has had their top team not be as good as the Big Ten or Big 12's top team. They've never faced an SEC, Pac 10, or non power conference school in a BCS game since the ACC change of alignment. They are 1-1 against the Big East in that time and 1-0 against the Big East's current alignment.

So basically what you're saying is that the top team in the ACC is worse than any other power conference and at large teams, that's what we have been saying all along. I'd like to thank you for finally admitting it.

In the past the ACC's top team hasn't been as good as the other power conferences top teams with the exception of the Big East. Once again if you actually read what I say you'd have known I said that from the beginning. It still doesn't change the fact that as a whole the ACC has been better then the MWC the past 5 years and THIS year I believe the ACC is the 4th best conference. If you want a list of the best conferences over the last 5 years then I'd put the Big 12 ahead of the ACC making the ACC 5th on the list.

Also, last year in both the MWC and the WAC 56% of their teams had winning records. Compared to 58% in the ACC. Factor in that they have 3 more teams than both conferences and you'll find that that they were basically equal in terms winning percentage.

Once again you give stats without really any analyzing of said stats. The MWC plays a weaker schedule then the ACC. The ACC in-conference play doesn't have many gimme games. In the MWC outside of the top 3-4 teams the other 5 should be automatic wins every year. The middle of the ACC and bottom of the ACC absolutely shits on the middle and bottom of the MWC.

The only "facts" you have provided is that in week 4 of this college football season the MWC had a couple higher ranked teams then the ACC and that they had a better bowl record last year as a conference against far shittier competition. That's not much of an argument. The ACC has a higher percentage of bowl eligible teams every year compared to the MWC. You also like this ranking thing so much, at the end of the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 seasons the ACC had more ranked teams then the MWC. It was an equal amount in 2008.

The only debatable thing about these two conferences is which conference has a better top 2 teams. After those top two the ACC is immensely superior to the MWC. I will also reestablish the point that if you put any MWC team in the ACC then their win total drops. If you put any ACC team in the MWC then their win total rises.

Florida State 34 BYU 10 a couple weeks ago. That's the ACC's probably 3-4th best team vs the MWC's 3-4th best team. You still have yet to respond to this stat. Probably because it's one of many things that makes your argument complete shit. You have no substance to prove the MWC as a whole is better then the ACC as a whole. The reason you don't have that substance is because it doesn't exist.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Can you please actually read my posts. I said THIS YEAR I believe the ACC will have the better overall conference by a slight margin then the Big 12. Rankings in week 4 really mean jack shit. Most of those rankings are still based on where the teams were projected in the pre season. Texas has not played well enough to be a top 25 team but because they started at 7 they are still ranked.

So, you're prognosticating the future which makes this thread entirely fucking pointless. You're arguing shit that hasn't even happened. I'm living in the now. Week 4, not fucking looking into the future. You're basing your opinion off of events that have not even occurred. If they do occur, I'm sure your argument will be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm not going to debate events that have yet to take place. I'll make predictions with you about these events all day long, that's fine, but I'm not going to have some heated discussion where you're arguing adamantly that something is completely true when it hasn't even occurred. There's no possible way for you to know that.

That was a 2 AM typo. I've stated everywhere else that it does not equate for a better conference and that is the truth. More ranked teams does not automatically equal a better conference and that is a fact. especially when we are only in week 4. If this was the end of the season your point would be slightly more credible but now it really means jack shit. Right now the WAC has as many ranked teams as the ACC but if you think the WAC is on equal footing with them then this debate is over because you've proven yourself to be a complete dumb ass when it comes to college football knowledge. I don't care that the MWC has a couple higher ranked teams then the ACC, that is only TWO teams. Their conference has 9 teams. This really is a simple concept that you are absolutely failing to grasp.

Correction, if this were the end of the season BOTH of our points would be credible depending on how the season played out.

You cannot throw the following two contradictory quotes in there and say that your actual argument holds water.

I said THIS YEAR I believe the ACC will have the better overall conference by a slight margin then the Big 12

and

If this was the end of the season your point would be slightly more credible but now it really means jack shit.

Well, your opinion about the Big 12 would hold more water if it were the end of the season, then, but right now, as I've stated, it means jack shit. You're discounting the entire strength of the Big 12 because Texas struggled in the early going. Nevermind that other Big 12 teams have looked very good and that Gilbert just got going.

Translation- The ACC in the past has had their top team not be as good as the Big Ten or Big 12's top team. They've never faced an SEC, Pac 10, or non power conference school in a BCS game since the ACC change of alignment. They are 1-1 against the Big East in that time and 1-0 against the Big East's current alignment.

They've lost to Kansas, Iowa, Miami, and Louisville during that time. Kansas represented the Big 12. The fact that they haven't played a Pac-10 team or an SEC team means that their conference didn't have another team worthy of a BCS at large big. Another fact you've ignored. The rest of their conference as a COMPLETE whole hasn't produced an at large team at all. Of their recent additions, only Virginia Tech has even gone to a major bowl. BC and Miami have perennially underachieved.

In the past the ACC's top team hasn't been as good as the other power conferences top teams with the exception of the Big East. Once again if you actually read what I say you'd have known I said that from the beginning. It still doesn't change the fact that as a whole the ACC has been better then the MWC the past 5 years and THIS year I believe the ACC is the 4th best conference. If you want a list of the best conferences over the last 5 years then I'd put the Big 12 ahead of the ACC making the ACC 5th on the list.

No, they've been worse than the Big East. Aside from the fact that neither team has an at large team in the BCS, the Big East has a higher winning percentage in those games than the ACC. From 2005 through the 2009 season the Big East was 13-10 in bowl games, the ACC 17-27. Sending people to bowls doesn't matter if they are getting crushed. You only need six wins to get to a bowl game. As I've already shown half the ACC sits at 5 wins on average per season. However, the ACC has 4 more teams than the Big East.
Sorry, the Big East has even been better than the ACC under its current alignment. Wrong again, bud.

Once again you give stats without really any analyzing of said stats. The MWC plays a weaker schedule then the ACC. The ACC in-conference play doesn't have many gimme games. In the MWC outside of the top 3-4 teams the other 5 should be automatic wins every year. The middle of the ACC and bottom of the ACC absolutely shits on the middle and bottom of the MWC.

The only "facts" you have provided is that in week 4 of this college football season the MWC had a couple higher ranked teams then the ACC and that they had a better bowl record last year as a conference against far shittier competition. That's not much of an argument. The ACC has a higher percentage of bowl eligible teams every year compared to the MWC. You also like this ranking thing so much, at the end of the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 seasons the ACC had more ranked teams then the MWC. It was an equal amount in 2008.

Yes, but I'm not arguing then, I'm arguing right now, week 4. The ACC hasn't shown much where as the MWC and the WAC have. I understand that Florida St. beat BYU. BYU is also rebuilding after losing their 6 year starting QB, half their backfield, and plenty of players to missions. Oh how you forget that Air Force played Oklahoma way tougher than Florida St. At the present moment, I would take the top two in both the WAC and the MWC over anyone in the ACC. Utah, TCU, Boise, and Nevada would probably put a beat down on anything that the ACC had to offer. I would take favorable match-ups between the middle of the pack in both conferences against some of your middle of the pack like Maryland, Duke, and Virginia. The ACC looks like shit right now in week four. Who cares if it was Ohio St. that Miami lost to, I'm looking at how they actually played the game, and what will most likely be the results if Jacory Harris continues to be a piss poor decision maker with the football.

I doubt NC will get the players back that they need because of how radically they are coming down on teams/players regarding agents and ties to agents.

Florida St cannot play defense right now. They will most likely have a middle of the pack year. NC State looks good, but I highly doubt they finish as strong as they started. Please don't tell me you believe Duke is going to have a hell of a season. The teams in the MWC and WAC, maybe because I get to see more of their games living in California, look better to me than the teams in the ACC.

The only debatable thing about these two conferences is which conference has a better top 2 teams. After those top two the ACC is immensely superior to the MWC. I will also reestablish the point that if you put any MWC team in the ACC then their win total drops. If you put any ACC team in the MWC then their win total rises.

And if you put an ACC team in the Mountain West after its realignment with the WAC, I bet their win total drops. We could argue hypotheticals all day.

Florida State 34 BYU 10 a couple weeks ago. That's the ACC's probably 3-4th best team vs the MWC's 3-4th best team. You still have yet to respond to this stat. Probably because it's one of many things that makes your argument complete shit. You have no substance to prove the MWC as a whole is better then the ACC as a whole. The reason you don't have that substance is because it doesn't exist.

Virginia Tech got beat by Boise St. and James Madison. Florida St got crushed by Oklahoma who could only beat Air Force by 3. There's my response to that. MMAth doesn't work for college football.

 

[Big Sexy]

So, you're prognosticating the future which makes this thread entirely fucking pointless. You're arguing shit that hasn't even happened. I'm living in the now. Week 4, not fucking looking into the future. You're basing your opinion off of events that have not even occurred. If they do occur, I'm sure your argument will be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I'm not going to debate events that have yet to take place. I'll make predictions with you about these events all day long, that's fine, but I'm not going to have some heated discussion where you're arguing adamantly that something is completely true when it hasn't even occurred. There's no possible way for you to know that.

You're the one who brought the Big 12 into the argument when it was completely irrelevant. I stated my opinion that I believe the ACC is a better conference this year then the Big 12 and that's it.

Well, your opinion about the Big 12 would hold more water if it were the end of the season, then, but right now, as I've stated, it means jack shit. You're discounting the entire strength of the Big 12 because Texas struggled in the early going. Nevermind that other Big 12 teams have looked very good and that Gilbert just got going.

So we're still talking about the Big 12? Glad you're avoiding what this debate is really about. Once again, I stated my opinion that the ACC will be the 4th best conference this year and nothing more. Let's get back to the actual topic at hand unless you would like to avoid your beat down further.

They've lost to Kansas, Iowa, Miami, and Louisville during that time. Kansas represented the Big 12. The fact that they haven't played a Pac-10 team or an SEC team means that their conference didn't have another team worthy of a BCS at large big. Another fact you've ignored. The rest of their conference as a COMPLETE whole hasn't produced an at large team at all. Of their recent additions, only Virginia Tech has even gone to a major bowl. BC and Miami have perennially underachieved.

And how exactly does any of this make the MWC a better conference? I've already stated that over the last 5 years the ACC has probably been the 5th best conference overall behind the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, and Big 12. However, they are certainly better then the MWC.

No, they've been worse than the Big East. Aside from the fact that neither team has an at large team in the BCS, the Big East has a higher winning percentage in those games than the ACC. From 2005 through the 2009 season the Big East was 13-10 in bowl games, the ACC 17-27. Sending people to bowls doesn't matter if they are getting crushed. You only need six wins to get to a bowl game. As I've already shown half the ACC sits at 5 wins on average per season. However, the ACC has 4 more teams than the Big East.
Sorry, the Big East has even been better than the ACC under its current alignment. Wrong again, bud.

Big East vs ACC is a much closer argument over the last 5 years then ACC vs MWC. If this was the debate then you may have had a chance but I still don't think the Big East is as good because they're like a mini ACC. A lot of good teams in the middle of the pack but not as many elite teams at the top. The Big East has really fallen off the last couple seasons. A few years ago they were probably ahead of the ACC but the last couple years they have been surpassed. The Big East is another conference that doesn't always get the best competition in bowl games so that obviously helps and

Just last bowl season an average Florida State team from the ACC crushed the number 3 team in the Big East, while another middle of the pack ACC team in UNC lost a close game to the number 2 team in the Big East. In 2008 Va Tech took out Cinci in the Orange Bowl. In 2007 Wake Forest from the ACC defeated a ranked Uconn team from the Big East. Many of the Big East's bowl wins over the last few years have come against non power conference schools.

Again Big East vs ACC over the last few years would be a much better and much closer debate but that's not what we're talking about here. It's still ACC vs MWC.

Yes, but I'm not arguing then, I'm arguing right now, week 4. The ACC hasn't shown much where as the MWC and the WAC have. I understand that Florida St. beat BYU. BYU is also rebuilding after losing their 6 year starting QB, half their backfield, and plenty of players to missions. Oh how you forget that Air Force played Oklahoma way tougher than Florida St. At the present moment, I would take the top two in both the WAC and the MWC over anyone in the ACC. Utah, TCU, Boise, and Nevada would probably put a beat down on anything that the ACC had to offer. I would take favorable match-ups between the middle of the pack in both conferences against some of your middle of the pack like Maryland, Duke, and Virginia. The ACC looks like shit right now in week four. Who cares if it was Ohio St. that Miami lost to, I'm looking at how they actually played the game, and what will most likely be the results if Jacory Harris continues to be a piss poor decision maker with the football.

Right now I guarantee that Miami could beat Utah and definitely beat Nevada. I could see a few ACC teams that could beat Nevada. That's still just two teams from both conferences. This isn't top two vs top two in each conference, every team is involved. This includes New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado State, UNLV, and San Diego State. All pretty horrible teams.

I doubt NC will get the players back that they need because of how radically they are coming down on teams/players regarding agents and ties to agents.

Yet UNC is still better then 6 maybe 7 of the teams in the WAC.

Florida St cannot play defense right now. They will most likely have a middle of the pack year. NC State looks good, but I highly doubt they finish as strong as they started. Please don't tell me you believe Duke is going to have a hell of a season. The teams in the MWC and WAC, maybe because I get to see more of their games living in California, look better to me than the teams in the ACC.

5 of the 9 teams in the MWC currently have losing records, how exactly is that looking good? San Diego State is 3-1 but lost to the only power conference team they faced.

And if you put an ACC team in the Mountain West after its realignment with the WAC, I bet their win total drops. We could argue hypotheticals all day.

The difference is that mine is most likely true and yours would most likely be false.

Virginia Tech got beat by Boise St. and James Madison. Florida St got crushed by Oklahoma who could only beat Air Force by 3. There's my response to that. MMAth doesn't work for college football.

You're really going to use the "Team A crushed Team B and then barely beat Team C so obviously Team C is better then Team B" argument? I know you're better then that.

I'm not even sure what you're debating anymore. This was ACC vs MWC and half of your post was about the Big 12 and Big East. You then keep talking about how right now is all that matters yet the majority of your stats from previous posts have been about PAST bowl records and PAST achievements. If right now is all that matters then the ACC is better. If we bring in the past and say who has been the better conference the last 5 years then I have shown stats that the ACC is better. No matter how you cut it the ACC is the better OVERALL conference.

Outside of maybe Duke and Virginia every team in the ACC would be better then at least 5 or 6 teams in the MWC. Yes it's speculation but it's speculation that probably 90% of college analysts would agree with. The only argument you have really made to say the MWC is better then the ACC is that they currently have the better top 2 teams. Sorry but that doesn't cut it.

I'm sure you're going to respond to this post but keep in mind that this from the beginning has been a ACC vs MWC debate between me and you. Try to keep the Big 12 and Big East out because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

You're the one who brought the Big 12 into the argument when it was completely irrelevant. I stated my opinion that I believe the ACC is a better conference this year then the Big 12 and that's it.

Actually, YOU brought the Big 12 into it when you claimed they were a better conference than the Big 12 this year as well. I realize that we are talking about the MWC and the WAC, I"m addressing all points as best as I can.

So we're still talking about the Big 12? Glad you're avoiding what this debate is really about. Once again, I stated my opinion that the ACC will be the 4th best conference this year and nothing more. Let's get back to the actual topic at hand unless you would like to avoid your beat down further.

I'm not avoiding what this debate is about at all. You're using two different premises for your arguments while telling me that my opinion about the MWC and WAC being better right now doesn't matter because it's not at the end of the season. Let me try and make this clear for you so you can follow your own logic.

Premise A: You say we're talking about right now and that if it were the end of the season my opinion would hold water, but right now it means jack shit

Premise B: You're saying that one conference will be better than another at the end of the season and you're not talking about right now.

These are two contradictory premises that, while they pertain to two different arguments, illustrate that you're calling me stupid for using the very line of thinking that you're using in another debate.

It's hard to continue a debate with anyone whose logic is so incredibly flawed that they are incapable of recognizing that they are arguing the same way I am on a different topic while telling me that my exact same point means jack shit for another.

And how exactly does any of this make the MWC a better conference? I've already stated that over the last 5 years the ACC has probably been the 5th best conference overall behind the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, and Big 12. However, they are certainly better then the MWC.

Since I've clearly stated several times that I am not talking about then but now, I will clearly state it for you one more time. I am not talking about seasons past. I am discussing the hear and right now. Nevada, Utah, Boise, Air Force, TCU, BYU, Hawaii, and Fresno St. have looked more impressive to me than most ACC teams that I have seen play this year. I cannot tell you how the year will end. You cannot TELL me, either. You can offer an informed analysis, but to suggest that you can foretell the future is ludicrous.

Big East vs ACC is a much closer argument over the last 5 years then ACC vs MWC. If this was the debate then you may have had a chance but I still don't think the Big East is as good because they're like a mini ACC. A lot of good teams in the middle of the pack but not as many elite teams at the top. The Big East has really fallen off the last couple seasons. A few years ago they were probably ahead of the ACC but the last couple years they have been surpassed. The Big East is another conference that doesn't always get the best competition in bowl games so that obviously helps and

Just last bowl season an average Florida State team from the ACC crushed the number 3 team in the Big East, while another middle of the pack ACC team in UNC lost a close game to the number 2 team in the Big East. In 2008 Va Tech took out Cinci in the Orange Bowl. In 2007 Wake Forest from the ACC defeated a ranked Uconn team from the Big East. Many of the Big East's bowl wins over the last few years have come against non power conference schools.

Again Big East vs ACC over the last few years would be a much better and much closer debate but that's not what we're talking about here. It's still ACC vs MWC.

No the ACC vs. Big East is not a close debate. The ACC is vastly inferior to every power conference in football. I've shown you the stats on bowls as well as BCS bowls. You have the worst winning percentage and lowest number of representatives of any power conference and are the only other conference besides the Big East to have not sent an at large team to the BCS.

Right now I guarantee that Miami could beat Utah and definitely beat Nevada. I could see a few ACC teams that could beat Nevada. That's still just two teams from both conferences. This isn't top two vs top two in each conference, every team is involved. This includes New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado State, UNLV, and San Diego State. All pretty horrible teams.



Yet UNC is still better then 6 maybe 7 of the teams in the WAC.



5 of the 9 teams in the MWC currently have losing records, how exactly is that looking good? San Diego State is 3-1 but lost to the only power conference team they faced.



The difference is that mine is most likely true and yours would most likely be false.

So, let me get this straight. You're telling that because you think it will come true that you're right? That's the best argument you can come up with? Here, too, you're committing another logical fallacy called circular reasoning. You're supporting your premise with another premise. Faulty logic.
Look, you've reached an endpass on this one, I've already stated that I believe Boise, Nevada, Utah, and TCU could easily beat any ACC team, you're saying they couldn't. This particular argument is a stalemate.

You're really going to use the "Team A crushed Team B and then barely beat Team C so obviously Team C is better then Team B" argument? I know you're better then that.

That's exactly my point. It's called MMAth and it's stupid. You can bring the fact that Florida St. beat BYU. I can bring up the fact that Va. Tech lost to Boise and James Madison. This line of thinking isn't getting us anywhere. Both conferences have losses.

I'm not even sure what you're debating anymore. This was ACC vs MWC and half of your post was about the Big 12 and Big East. You then keep talking about how right now is all that matters yet the majority of your stats from previous posts have been about PAST bowl records and PAST achievements. If right now is all that matters then the ACC is better. If we bring in the past and say who has been the better conference the last 5 years then I have shown stats that the ACC is better. No matter how you cut it the ACC is the better OVERALL conference.

Outside of maybe Duke and Virginia every team in the ACC would be better then at least 5 or 6 teams in the MWC. Yes it's speculation but it's speculation that probably 90% of college analysts would agree with. The only argument you have really made to say the MWC is better then the ACC is that they currently have the better top 2 teams. Sorry but that doesn't cut it.

I'm sure you're going to respond to this post but keep in mind that this from the beginning has been a ACC vs MWC debate between me and you. Try to keep the Big 12 and Big East out because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Because every time I try and explain to you that my line of thinking refers to NOW, WEEK 4, NOW, you throw an ad hominem fallacy in there, attack me as a person, and bring up the past. So, I focus on the past. I try and say now, you say now doesn't matter, I try and say the end of the season, you say I don't have a point just yet or bring up the past. I'm not the one shifting the timeline on this debate. You've changed your argument's premise so many times that it's ridiculous.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'm not avoiding what this debate is about at all. You're using two different premises for your arguments while telling me that my opinion about the MWC and WAC being better right now doesn't matter because it's not at the end of the season. Let me try and make this clear for you so you can follow your own logic.

Premise A: You say we're talking about right now and that if it were the end of the season my opinion would hold water, but right now it means jack shit

Premise B: You're saying that one conference will be better than another at the end of the season and you're not talking about right now.

These are two contradictory premises that, while they pertain to two different arguments, illustrate that you're calling me stupid for using the very line of thinking that you're using in another debate.

All the confusion in this debate has started and ended with you. It's hard to keep track of what's being debated and what's relevant when you change it every single post. You talk about rankings mattering yet at week 4 in the college football season they aren't all that relevant. That's all I've been saying. Whether it's right now, at the end of this season, or in the past 5 years, the ACC is better then MWC.

Since I've clearly stated several times that I am not talking about then but now, I will clearly state it for you one more time. I am not talking about seasons past. I am discussing the hear and right now. Nevada, Utah, Boise, Air Force, TCU, BYU, Hawaii, and Fresno St. have looked more impressive to me than most ACC teams that I have seen play this year. I cannot tell you how the year will end. You cannot TELL me, either. You can offer an informed analysis, but to suggest that you can foretell the future is ludicrous.

Then why the fuck do you keep bringing up stats from bowl games and seasons that are all in the past. A good 95% of your arguments and stats that you have used in this debate need to be thrown out the window because none of them are relevant if right now is the only thing you want the debate to be about.

No the ACC vs. Big East is not a close debate. The ACC is vastly inferior to every power conference in football. I've shown you the stats on bowls as well as BCS bowls. You have the worst winning percentage and lowest number of representatives of any power conference and are the only other conference besides the Big East to have not sent an at large team to the BCS.

What happened to right now? I'd say looking at the last 5 years the ACC has been better then the Big East in 2005, 2008, and 2009. The Big East was the better conference in 2006 and 2007. It's close but I give the nod to the ACC. Again all of this is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with this debate.

So, let me get this straight. You're telling that because you think it will come true that you're right? That's the best argument you can come up with? Here, too, you're committing another logical fallacy called circular reasoning. You're supporting your premise with another premise. Faulty logic.
Look, you've reached an endpass on this one, I've already stated that I believe Boise, Nevada, Utah, and TCU could easily beat any ACC team, you're saying they couldn't. This particular argument is a stalemate.

Once again when did conferences become only about 2 teams? The MWC has 9 teams, it isn't just Utah and TCU.

That's exactly my point. It's called MMAth and it's stupid. You can bring the fact that Florida St. beat BYU. I can bring up the fact that Va. Tech lost to Boise and James Madison. This line of thinking isn't getting us anywhere. Both conferences have losses.

When did Boise and James Madison join the MWC? Did I miss something? Florida State (an ACC team) beating BYU (an MWC team) is very relevant to the topic at hand.

Because every time I try and explain to you that my line of thinking refers to NOW, WEEK 4, NOW, you throw an ad hominem fallacy in there, attack me as a person, and bring up the past. So, I focus on the past. I try and say now, you say now doesn't matter, I try and say the end of the season, you say I don't have a point just yet or bring up the past. I'm not the one shifting the timeline on this debate. You've changed your argument's premise so many times that it's ridiculous.

You are delusional homie. From the very beginning you've been using past stats to base your arguments off of. Go back to post #33 in this thread as that is the first post that brings up the past in our debate. You know who made that post? You. You brought up last years bowl records. Then a few posts later you started talking about the ACC's past Orange Bowl appearances. Every time I've brought up the past it has been in response to a direct quote from you about past stats. Don't try to pin your mistakes on me. You have been the only one to change the premise of the debate and that is the one thing in this thread that is a guaranteed fact.

You want to talk about right now then let's do it. Forget everything else and all of YOUR changes to what was being debated.

Right now the ACC has a higher percentage of teams with winning records compared to the MWC. Right now the ACC conference has a higher winning percentage then the MWC. Right now the ACC has only 2 of 12 teams with losing records while the MWC has 5 of their 9 teams with losing records.

Right now the MWC's two ranked teams are ranked higher then the ACC's two ranked teams but like I said this isn't a 2 vs 2 debate. This is the ACC 12 vs the MWC 9 and the ACC wins hands down. Not to mention that, like I said earlier, week 4 rankings are still based more on pre season notions rather then who the true top 25 teams in the country are. TCU's only big win was over an Oregon State team that is now 1-2. Utah's only big win was over a Pitt team that is currently 1-2. In fact it took Utah OT to beat Pitt at home. Miami went on the road and beat Pitt 31-3.

Now matter how you cut it ACC > MWC.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

All the confusion in this debate has started and ended with you. It's hard to keep track of what's being debated and what's relevant when you change it every single post. You talk about rankings mattering yet at week 4 in the college football season they aren't all that relevant. That's all I've been saying. Whether it's right now, at the end of this season, or in the past 5 years, the ACC is better then MWC.

If rankings right now didn't matter, then perhaps you can explain to Boise St why they won't play for the national title if Ohio St. and Alabama win out. No football analyst on the planet would agree with you for saying that the rankings at ANY point in the season don't matter. They always matter. That's one of the CRITICISMS of the BCS.

Then why the fuck do you keep bringing up stats from bowl games and seasons that are all in the past. A good 95% of your arguments and stats that you have used in this debate need to be thrown out the window because none of them are relevant if right now is the only thing you want the debate to be about.


What happened to right now? I'd say looking at the last 5 years the ACC has been better then the Big East in 2005, 2008, and 2009. The Big East was the better conference in 2006 and 2007. It's close but I give the nod to the ACC. Again all of this is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with this debate.

I understand that I'm talking about now with the MWC, I already addressed that. You brought up since 2005 with the current alignment. You brought up the the Big East was the joke conference. I clearly fucking pointed out to you that you're wrong. Statistically, you're wrong. ACC=lowest bowl winning percentage, lowest number of teams to represent their conference in the BCS, by FAR the lowest BCS winning percentage. Your conference is the worst. The numbers don't lie. I don't care what you'd give the nod to, at the end of the day, you have the WORST overall numbers. How are you STILL arguing this? It's not up for debate. Do I need to bold it for you, cut and past a side by side comparison SHOWING you that you're the worst conference.

You can argue MWC and WAC with me all day, that's fine. ACC is the WORST power conference, since its current alignment, since 2005. End of story. You don't have a leg to stand on because YOU would give it the nod. Here are the numbers again

ACC: 17-27 in bowls.

Big East: 13-10

Who gives a shit if you're sending more people, you should, you have 4 more teams. If anything, that makes you statistically worse because you're sending more and losing WAY more. The addition of Va. Tech, Miami, and BC really don't make that much of a difference in the ACC's BCS appearances because only Va. Tech has gone to a BCS game out of those three and guess what, they actually account for HALF of your fucking BCS wins and only one loss.

Once again when did conferences become only about 2 teams? The MWC has 9 teams, it isn't just Utah and TCU.

I believe that I mentioned other teams, but as I stated earlier, this thread is about MWC and WAC schools.

When did Boise and James Madison join the MWC? Did I miss something? Florida State (an ACC team) beating BYU (an MWC team) is very relevant to the topic at hand.

Boise St. joined the MWC this year, but that's irrelevant because they're playing an WAC schedule. This debate has been about smaller conferences vs. bigger conferences, look at the threat title. But, if you must know I was illustrating that a power team in the ACC got beat by a vastly inferior conference

You are delusional homie. From the very beginning you've been using past stats to base your arguments off of. Go back to post #33 in this thread as that is the first post that brings up the past in our debate. You know who made that post? You. You brought up last years bowl records. Then a few posts later you started talking about the ACC's past Orange Bowl appearances. Every time I've brought up the past it has been in response to a direct quote from you about past stats. Don't try to pin your mistakes on me. You have been the only one to change the premise of the debate and that is the one thing in this thread that is a guaranteed fact.

You want to talk about right now then let's do it. Forget everything else and all of YOUR changes to what was being debated.

Right now the ACC has a higher percentage of teams with winning records compared to the MWC. Right now the ACC conference has a higher winning percentage then the MWC. Right now the ACC has only 2 of 12 teams with losing records while the MWC has 5 of their 9 teams with losing records.

Right now the MWC's two ranked teams are ranked higher then the ACC's two ranked teams but like I said this isn't a 2 vs 2 debate. This is the ACC 12 vs the MWC 9 and the ACC wins hands down. Not to mention that, like I said earlier, week 4 rankings are still based more on pre season notions rather then who the true top 25 teams in the country are. TCU's only big win was over an Oregon State team that is now 1-2. Utah's only big win was over a Pitt team that is currently 1-2. In fact it took Utah OT to beat Pitt at home. Miami went on the road and beat Pitt 31-3.

Now matter how you cut it ACC > MWC.

No, I've been following your logical fallacies and BTW, it's not hard to have more teams with winning records when conference play for the MWC and WAC has already begun and the ACC is playing James Madison, Florida Presbyterian, Florida A & M, Weber St, North Texas, Florida International, West Carolina, should I go on?


The MWC and the WAC have been playing each other since week one. Who the fuck are half those schools I listed above that the ACC is playing as OOC opponents. Yeah, they're great schools. I'm pretty sure most mid-major conferences would have a good record against those teams. Hell, you guys were even nice enough to schedule an FCS opponent just to make things really tough.

For the last time, I'm talking about how the teams have been playing and what they look like when they play. The highest ranked team in the ACC has a QB who has 6 TD's and 6 INT's in 3 games. Yeah, Miami's gonna be a winner. Harris is clearly a smart QB. Don't sell me on Miami or anyone else in the ACC.

You're clearly an ACC nuthugger who realizes people would laugh you out of the water if you tried to claim the ACC was better than any power conference other than the Big East this year. People will let the Big 12 slip by because they saw Texas get crushed by UCLA this weekend. People remember what they last see.

At the end of the day, the Big 12 has 42% of its teams ranked in the top 25 and you're still saying your two whole ranked teams, one of which has a QB with 6 INT's in 3 games, is better than half a conference.

You remind me of Lou Holtz. No matter how ridiculous of a claim it is, you'll stick to your guns about the ACC.

By the way, I love that you've clearly ignored all of the logical fallacies I've pointed out that you've made.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Actually, I forgot, Florida St had to vacate 12 wins. 7 from 2007 and 5 from 2006 including a bowl win.

So, with a little simple math

ACC: 16-28 in bowls since 2005. That's a 36% bowl winning record and completely gives Florida St two losing seasons in the ACC two of those 5 years.

 

[Big Sexy]

If rankings right now didn't matter, then perhaps you can explain to Boise St why they won't play for the national title if Ohio St. and Alabama win out. No football analyst on the planet would agree with you for saying that the rankings at ANY point in the season don't matter. They always matter. That's one of the CRITICISMS of the BCS.

Because Ohio State and Alabama play tougher schedules and are in much tougher conferences. Rankings have some importance currently but for the most part this early in the season it is still based more on where these teams were in the pre season. That's why the BCS rankings don't come out until later in the season.

You can argue MWC and WAC with me all day, that's fine. ACC is the WORST power conference, since its current alignment, since 2005. End of story. You don't have a leg to stand on because YOU would give it the nod. Here are the numbers again

ACC: 17-27 in bowls.

Big East: 13-10

And I've already said that the Big East got a lot of bowl wins against worse competition like Conference USA and MAC teams. The ACC is not MY conference I just stated that I believe they were better then the Big East in 3 of the last 5 years and I've shown over the last 2-3 years the ACC has done favorably in head to head match ups vs the Big East. You can give me all the numbers you want about overall bowl records and regular season records against different levels of competition. I'm showing you actual relevant head to head ACC vs Big East match ups.

So far this year the ACC is 3-1 vs the Big East head to head. Last year the ACC was 4-3 against the Big East head to head. In 2008 the Big East went 4-3 vs the ACC but the class of the ACC, Va Tech beat the class of the Big East, Cinci in the Orange Bowl. In 2005 the ACC went 7-2 vs the Big East head to head. I already conceded that the Big East was better in both 2006 and 2007. Head to head match ups show that the ACC was better in 2005, 2009, and so far this year. In 2008 the Big East had one more win then the ACC head to head but Va Tech won the big head to head match up in the Orange Bowl. Once Again the two conferences are very close the last 5 years but the edge goes to the ACC in my mind and I have relevant stats to back my claims up.

And for about the 1000th time this isn't ACC vs Big East, it's ACC vs MWC that we're debating.

Boise St. joined the MWC this year, but that's irrelevant because they're playing an WAC schedule. This debate has been about smaller conferences vs. bigger conferences, look at the threat title. But, if you must know I was illustrating that a power team in the ACC got beat by a vastly inferior conference

1. Boise State is officially in the WAC this year. Their change does not take place until next year. I know what the thread is about but the debate we've been having this entire time is ACC vs MWC.

2. Looking at the bold area of your statement you say that the WAC is vastly inferior to the ACC. However, you've stated multiple times in this thread about how rankings are what make conferences better. The WAC and ACC both have two ranked teams so by your completely faulty logic shouldn't they be equal? It seems to me you are contradicting your own philosophy. Point to me.

No, I've been following your logical fallacies and BTW, it's not hard to have more teams with winning records when conference play for the MWC and WAC has already begun and the ACC is playing James Madison, Florida Presbyterian, Florida A & M, Weber St, North Texas, Florida International, West Carolina, should I go on?

The ACC is also playing teams like Ohio State, Pitt, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, LSU, Boise State, USC, Auburn, Alabama, Stanford, West Virginia etc.. AND the ACC has started conference play as well, so nice try but your argument fails once again.

Also, don't act like the MWC teams are playing these overly difficult schedules. They've played games against the likes of Miami (OH), Idaho, Nicholls State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Tennessee Tech, San Jose State, and Southern Utah.

The MWC and the WAC have been playing each other since week one. Who the fuck are half those schools I listed above that the ACC is playing as OOC opponents. Yeah, they're great schools. I'm pretty sure most mid-major conferences would have a good record against those teams. Hell, you guys were even nice enough to schedule an FCS opponent just to make things really tough.

1. Stop saying "you guys" the ACC is far from my conference just a superior conference to the MWC.

2. It's great of you to bring up FCS schools because so far MWC teams have played the likes of Tennessee Tech, Nicholls State, and Utah State, like I mentioned above. All of those schools are FCS teams. And don't act like starting conference play is big for the MWC when over half their teams are completely atrocious.

For the last time, I'm talking about how the teams have been playing and what they look like when they play. The highest ranked team in the ACC has a QB who has 6 TD's and 6 INT's in 3 games. Yeah, Miami's gonna be a winner. Harris is clearly a smart QB. Don't sell me on Miami or anyone else in the ACC.

4 of those picks came in one game against OSU. A game that Miami actually outplayed OSU in. With the amount of mistakes Miami made they should have lost by a lot more. They rebounded and absolutely annihilated Pitt on the road 31-3 a couple weeks later. NC State is 4-0 and has wins over teams like Cincy and Georgia Tech. Florida State looked bad against Oklahoma but rebounded and absolutely crushed BYU (a MWC team). The ACC as a whole has looked better then the MWC as a whole.

You're clearly an ACC nuthugger who realizes people would laugh you out of the water if you tried to claim the ACC was better than any power conference other than the Big East this year. People will let the Big 12 slip by because they saw Texas get crushed by UCLA this weekend. People remember what they last see.

Nope I'm a Big Ten nut hugger. I'm hardly talking the ACC up like some tremendous conference. My stance from post 1 in our debate was this: THE ACC IS BETTER THEN THE MWC. TO THINK OTHERWISE SHOWS EXTREME STUPIDITY. That's it. Fuck the Big 12, fuck the Big East, fuck everything else. The ACC is better then the MWC that is what are debate is and always has been about.

You remind me of Lou Holtz. No matter how ridiculous of a claim it is, you'll stick to your guns about the ACC.

The only ridiculous claim being made is you saying the MWC is better then the ACC. You have shown me time and time again that your college football knowledge is severely lacking with some of the statements you've made.

By the way, I love that you've clearly ignored all of the logical fallacies I've pointed out that you've made.

I have responded to every relevant point you have made in this entire thread. You sir are the one ignoring the truth and passing up half of the very relevant and logical arguments I have made.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

The Big 12 is usually the better conference but this year the ACC is slightly better. Outside of Oklahoma and Nebraska the Big 12 doesn't have much. There is absolutely no depth throughout the conference. The ACC top to bottom is solid. Outside of the top teams the Big 12 schools play one of the weakest non conference schedules ever. With the ACC Florida State has an extremely tough non conference schedule, Miami played at Ohio State and at Pitt, Wake Forest has games against SEC and Pac 10 teams, Va Tech opened the season against a top 5 team. Big 12 teams just raid the bottom feeders of conferences like the WAC and MWC.

Texas vs. UCLA (granted they lost but still not a pancake) Florida St. vs. Oklahoma...Nebraska vs. Washington.....Pitt isnt all that good at all really...and Va. Tech scheduled a pancake just cant beat them...thats a point when has an ACC opponent beaten anybody worth mentioning? they had there chance to prove them selves

Boise St. vs. Va. Tech- lost
Miami(Fl) vs. Ohio St.- lost
Florida st. vs. Oklahoma- lost
Virgina vs. USC - lost
Kansas vs. Georgia Tech - lost (mind you Georgia Tech is defending ACC champ and Kansas had just lost to a D-IAA school)
North Carolina vs. LSU - lost
Duke vs. Alabama- lost
Maryland vs. Pitt - lost
Clemson vs. Auburn - lost...only game you can say is Miami over Pitt...and how good is Pitt?

yes the Big 12 is down this year and if again if Nebraska was in the Big Ten already then it might be close but not now.

 

[Big Sexy]

Texas vs. UCLA (granted they lost but still not a pancake) Florida St. vs. Oklahoma...Nebraska vs. Washington.....Pitt isnt all that good at all really...and Va. Tech scheduled a pancake just cant beat them...thats a point when has an ACC opponent beaten anybody worth mentioning? they had there chance to prove them selves

Neither UCLA or Washington is that good. Texas was supposed to be an elite team and they got destroyed by a UCLA team that had already lost to another Big 12 team in Kansas State. UCLA is still only 2-2 right now. Washington is an even worse team. They lost to a below average BYU team and their only win was over Syracuse. Washington is just 1-2 so that's hardly an impressive win.

Miami beat Pitt. NC State has beaten Cincy and Georgia Tech. I'm not saying the ACC is guaranteed going to be a better conference this year then the Big 12. My opinion is they will be a slightly better and deeper conference overall. I'm not going to say the ACC is vastly superior because it isn't. I can respect someone saying the Big 12 is better, it's really a matter of opinion more then anything else at this point. However, to say the MWC is better then ACC is just a complete fallacy.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Because Ohio State and Alabama play tougher schedules and are in much tougher conferences. Rankings have some importance currently but for the most part this early in the season it is still based more on where these teams were in the pre season. That's why the BCS rankings don't come out until later in the season.



And I've already said that the Big East got a lot of bowl wins against worse competition like Conference USA and MAC teams. The ACC is not MY conference I just stated that I believe they were better then the Big East in 3 of the last 5 years and I've shown over the last 2-3 years the ACC has done favorably in head to head match ups vs the Big East. You can give me all the numbers you want about overall bowl records and regular season records against different levels of competition. I'm showing you actual relevant head to head ACC vs Big East match ups.

So far this year the ACC is 3-1 vs the Big East head to head. Last year the ACC was 4-3 against the Big East head to head. In 2008 the Big East went 4-3 vs the ACC but the class of the ACC, Va Tech beat the class of the Big East, Cinci in the Orange Bowl. In 2005 the ACC went 7-2 vs the Big East head to head. I already conceded that the Big East was better in both 2006 and 2007. Head to head match ups show that the ACC was better in 2005, 2009, and so far this year. In 2008 the Big East had one more win then the ACC head to head but Va Tech won the big head to head match up in the Orange Bowl. Once Again the two conferences are very close the last 5 years but the edge goes to the ACC in my mind and I have relevant stats to back my claims up.

And for about the 1000th time this isn't ACC vs Big East, it's ACC vs MWC that we're debating.

We must be missing a step here because I don't care about head to head. The Pac-10 has the better record against the SEC by a substantial margin. I'm not EVEN gonna fucking say that the Pac-10 is better than the SEC.

ACC has had the worst overall showing of all the major conferences at the end of the season, that's what I care about. You're examining it one way and I'm looking at body of work. With that sort of logic I could say that because we've won more bowl games than the SEC in the past five years, and own the head to head, we're a better conference. We all know I'd be lying if I tried to sell the Pac-10 as better than the SEC.

Yes, this is about the MWC vs. ACC, so I'll move on, just wanted to clarify.

1. Boise State is officially in the WAC this year. Their change does not take place until next year. I know what the thread is about but the debate we've been having this entire time is ACC vs MWC.

2. Looking at the bold area of your statement you say that the WAC is vastly inferior to the ACC. However, you've stated multiple times in this thread about how rankings are what make conferences better. The WAC and ACC both have two ranked teams so by your completely faulty logic shouldn't they be equal? It seems to me you are contradicting your own philosophy. Point to me.

I didn't say they were playing in the MWC this year, I said they joined. There's a difference. Utah JOINED the Pac-10 and was introduced at the unveiling of our new logo and design, but they will play this year in the MWC.

Also, come on, man, you know damn good and well that when I was talking about a vastly inferior team, I was talking about James Madison, not Boise. Don't be that guy.



[/QUOTE]The ACC is also playing teams like Ohio State, Pitt, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, LSU, Boise State, USC, Auburn, Alabama, Stanford, West Virginia etc.. AND the ACC has started conference play as well, so nice try but your argument fails once again.

Also, don't act like the MWC teams are playing these overly difficult schedules. They've played games against the likes of Miami (OH), Idaho, Nicholls State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Tennessee Tech, San Jose State, and Southern Utah. [/QUOTE]

So, in that entire group you've named 3 FCS opponents. Tennessee Tech, Southern Utah, and Nicholls St.

1. Stop saying "you guys" the ACC is far from my conference just a superior conference to the MWC.

2. It's great of you to bring up FCS schools because so far MWC teams have played the likes of Tennessee Tech, Nicholls State, and Utah State, like I mentioned above. All of those schools are FCS teams. And don't act like starting conference play is big for the MWC when over half their teams are completely atrocious.

Actually, Utah St. plays in the WAC.

4 of those picks came in one game against OSU. A game that Miami actually outplayed OSU in. With the amount of mistakes Miami made they should have lost by a lot more. They rebounded and absolutely annihilated Pitt on the road 31-3 a couple weeks later. NC State is 4-0 and has wins over teams like Cincy and Georgia Tech. Florida State looked bad against Oklahoma but rebounded and absolutely crushed BYU (a MWC team). The ACC as a whole has looked better then the MWC as a whole.

When the best team in the conference has 4 INT's against the only decent opponent they've played, I wouldn't constitute that as "looking good"

As a matter of fact, I was at the Virginia-USC game and they looked like shit, too. Had we not had 11 fucking penalties for 140 yds and an ejection, the score to that game would have been a lot worse than 17-14. USC almost beat ourselves that night.

Wake Forest's QB also has a 1-1 TD-INT ratio. Oh, and only 305 yds passing through three games.

Matter of fact, the only QB playing lights out in the ACC is Russell Wilson from NC State.

My point here is this, I'm looking at how they look when I've seen them play, even in wins, ACC teams have looked like garbage. I could say the same for my Trojans. We are 4-0, none have looked good and it doesn't make me believe that they will be all that good this year.

I have responded to every relevant point you have made in this entire thread. You sir are the one ignoring the truth and passing up half of the very relevant and logical arguments I have made.

No, I've addressed them. I just don't think you follow my line of thinking.

 

[Big Sexy]

We must be missing a step here because I don't care about head to head. The Pac-10 has the better record against the SEC by a substantial margin. I'm not EVEN gonna fucking say that the Pac-10 is better than the SEC.

ACC has had the worst overall showing of all the major conferences at the end of the season, that's what I care about. You're examining it one way and I'm looking at body of work. With that sort of logic I could say that because we've won more bowl games than the SEC in the past five years, and own the head to head, we're a better conference. We all know I'd be lying if I tried to sell the Pac-10 as better than the SEC.

How is head to head not the most important stat? I don't care what the Big East did against mostly inferior competition in the bowl season. The last couple years the ACC has straight up beaten the Big East. There is no comparison greater then a head to head one. It's why the pro sport championships aren't given out at the end of regular seasons and why everyone wants a playoff system in college football. They want head to head match ups to see who is the best.

I didn't say they were playing in the MWC this year, I said they joined. There's a difference. Utah JOINED the Pac-10 and was introduced at the unveiling of our new logo and design, but they will play this year in the MWC.

The fact they joined the MWC for next year is completely irrelevant to this discussion so why even bring it up?

Also, come on, man, you know damn good and well that when I was talking about a vastly inferior team, I was talking about James Madison, not Boise. Don't be that guy.

You didn't say team, you said conference. Here is your exact quote:

But, if you must know I was illustrating that a power team in the ACC got beat by a vastly inferior conference

If you really think the fucking WAC is on par or better then the ACC you are even more delusional then I thought.

So, in that entire group you've named 3 FCS opponents. Tennessee Tech, Southern Utah, and Nicholls St.

Yes?

Actually, Utah St. plays in the WAC.

My bad, that was supposed to be Southern Utah like I had stated in my above point.

When the best team in the conference has 4 INT's against the only decent opponent they've played, I wouldn't constitute that as "looking good"

Everybody has a bad game. The team as a whole has looked good this year. And how come Pitt isn't a tough game for Miami? If they don't constitute a tough game then I guess Utah has played one of the easiest schedules in the nation thus far and shouldn't be ranked at 13.

As a matter of fact, I was at the Virginia-USC game and they looked like shit, too. Had we not had 11 fucking penalties for 140 yds and an ejection, the score to that game would have been a lot worse than 17-14. USC almost beat ourselves that night.

LOL. Virginia is an ACC bottom feeder and they only lost by three to one of the better Pac 10 teams and you're trying to use that as a negative against the ACC. Fucking Brilliant.

Wake Forest's QB also has a 1-1 TD-INT ratio. Oh, and only 305 yds passing through three games.

Matter of fact, the only QB playing lights out in the ACC is Russell Wilson from NC State.

My point here is this, I'm looking at how they look when I've seen them play, even in wins, ACC teams have looked like garbage. I could say the same for my Trojans. We are 4-0, none have looked good and it doesn't make me believe that they will be all that good this year.

Seriously dude? Are TCU, Utah, and Air Force the only MWC teams you have watched? There are 6 other teams in the conference and they have looked like shit. In fact they have a combined 7-17 record with only 1 of those wins coming against a power conference team. Colorado State's qb has thrown 7 picks, New Mexico's 1 qb has 1 td to 4 picks and their back up has 2 tds to 3 picks and a completion percentage under 50. You don't want to play the stat game here trust me. Outside of the top three the MWC teams have been horrendous. Even Air Force's qb is completing less then 50% of his passes against below average competition outside of Oklahoma.

No, I've addressed them. I just don't think you follow my line of thinking.

Because your line of thinking is nonsensical and lacks substance.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

Yes, your right its your opinon...quite honestly you dont see why im saying the MWC or Big 12 is better...and i dont see your Arguement with the ACC....im just going to agree to disagree.

 

[Big Sexy]

Yes, your right its your opinon...quite honestly you dont see why im saying the MWC or Big 12 is better...and i dont see your Arguement with the ACC....im just going to agree to disagree.

Big 12 vs ACC for this year you can agree to disagree but there is no way and no logical argument to show that the MWC is better then the ACC.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Well, actually we both can just agree to disagree because you're not going to change my opinion.

I didn't say anything at all about Pitt being a bad team, that was someone else.

If you want to go head to head stats then you will have to admit here and now that the SEC is weaker than the Pac-10. I personally don't believe that, but since head to head stats are more important to you than anything else, head to head stats indicate that the Pac-10 has edge over the SEC.

Historically the SEC is the best conference, but over the last 12 years the Pac-10 has owned the match-ups.

As far as present alignments

Pac-10: .528% winning percentage

SEC: .532% winning percentage

But the Pac-10 has an 12-9 advantage in head to head match-up, but I'm willing to bet you won't call the Pac-10 the superior conference even though we are basically even in winning percentage, but we own the head to head and the bowl match-ups. We are 9-8 against the SEC.

USC is not one of the better Pac-10 teams. We are one of the bottom Pac-10 teams. You're basing your opinion off the fact that we've been good in years past. We're coming off a 9-4 season, lost most of our players, have only one senior or junior on the entire defensive side of the ball Shareece Wright.

Again, I brought up that Air Force only lost by three to Oklahoma and you dismissed it, so I'm dismissing your Virginia claim. USC scored two more TD in that game that were nullified by stupid personal fouls after the play.

You're right, Miami did look great when they were playing a 1-2 Pitt team that's no better than 83rd in the nation in any offensive category.

ACC teams aren't looking good, dude. You're not going to convince me otherwise. I'm sorry, I personally don't care what you think of me, but I don't believe that the ACC is any good at all, as evidence by the stats I've given you, nor that they should have an automatic BCS bid.

The ACC is the BCS AQ equivalent of March Madness' 64/65 match up, except they have actually won two games. They are without a doubt the worst BCS AQ conference in terms of results and most people that I know that are fans of ACC teams are tired of hearing how great they are gonna be every year only to watch them fall flat on their ass.

Fine, you don't think the MWC is better, so be it, after conference realignment next year (or the year after depending on how the buyout procedure works), the ACC will actually be worse.

For now, myself and ThePeoplesChampion both believe that the MWC is better than the ACC. It's not changing.

I'm also pretty sure that James Madison still plays in a conference despite being a different division(FCS). They play in the CAA. A vastly inferior conference to the ACC. Like I said, don't be that guy, you knew what I was talking about. You're just trying to be insulting.

 

[Big Sexy]

I didn't say anything at all about Pitt being a bad team, that was someone else.

You said Ohio State was the only decent opponent that Miami had and the Hurricanes have played Pitt.

But the Pac-10 has an 12-9 advantage in head to head match-up, but I'm willing to bet you won't call the Pac-10 the superior conference even though we are basically even in winning percentage, but we own the head to head and the bowl match-ups. We are 9-8 against the SEC.

I don't know how many years that goes back but it does show that at times the Pac 10 has obviously been better then the SEC. Right now the SEC is ahead of them but in years past it could have definitely been different.

USC is not one of the better Pac-10 teams. We are one of the bottom Pac-10 teams. You're basing your opinion off the fact that we've been good in years past. We're coming off a 9-4 season, lost most of our players, have only one senior or junior on the entire defensive side of the ball Shareece Wright.

USC will likely have a down year but they are certainly not bottom feeders in the Pac 10. Arizona, Oregon, and Stanford would be the only teams that I would put ahead of them guaranteed. Virginia, however, is a bottom feeder in the ACC and they played, at the worst, a middle of the pack Pac 10 team very close.

Again, I brought up that Air Force only lost by three to Oklahoma and you dismissed it, so I'm dismissing your Virginia claim. USC scored two more TD in that game that were nullified by stupid personal fouls after the play.

I didn't dismiss anything, Air Force played a great game but the very next week they struggled to beat a below average Wyoming team. The difference between the comparisons is that Air Force is probably the third best team in the MWC while Virginia is one of the worst teams in the ACC.

You're right, Miami did look great when they were playing a 1-2 Pitt team that's no better than 83rd in the nation in any offensive category.

Wait, I thought Pitt wasn't a bad team? Miami crushed a team that Utah had to struggle to beat.

ACC teams aren't looking good, dude. You're not going to convince me otherwise. I'm sorry, I personally don't care what you think of me, but I don't believe that the ACC is any good at all, as evidence by the stats I've given you, nor that they should have an automatic BCS bid.

The ACC has looked a whole hell of a lot better then the MWC which is what our debate is about. My stats have shown that a lot more then yours.

For now, myself and ThePeoplesChampion both believe that the MWC is better than the ACC. It's not changing.

That's fine if you want to be wrong. But if you continue to debate me on it then I will continue to reply because no logical thinker could concur that the MWC is better then the ACC.

I'm also pretty sure that James Madison still plays in a conference despite being a different division(FCS). They play in the CAA. A vastly inferior conference to the ACC. Like I said, don't be that guy, you knew what I was talking about. You're just trying to be insulting.

Homie, it has been impossible to know what you're talking about this entire debate. You jump around more then House of Pain. It really doesn't matter what you meant because the WAC is a far inferior conference to the ACC as well.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

You said Ohio State was the only decent opponent that Miami had and the Hurricanes have played Pitt.

I didn't blast on Pitt until later on when you asked me if I had called Pitt a joke or something . That was ThePeoplesChamp

I don't know how many years that goes back but it does show that at times the Pac 10 has obviously been better then the SEC. Right now the SEC is ahead of them but in years past it could have definitely been different.

I gave you the numbers on winning percentage, season head to head, and bowl head to head. Do you still want to play dumb? Or do you want to admit that, by your criteria, the Pac-10 is better than the SEC? Again, this isn't my personal belief, but I'm using your criteria.

USC will likely have a down year but they are certainly not bottom feeders in the Pac 10. Arizona, Oregon, and Stanford would be the only teams that I would put ahead of them guaranteed. Virginia, however, is a bottom feeder in the ACC and they played, at the worst, a middle of the pack Pac 10 team very close.

A down year? We won't escape the Pac-10 above .500. Every team has bottom feeder seasons. Even the "almighty" USC.

I didn't dismiss anything, Air Force played a great game but the very next week they struggled to beat a below average Wyoming team. The difference between the comparisons is that Air Force is probably the third best team in the MWC while Virginia is one of the worst teams in the ACC.

Oklahoma is also the best/second best team in the Big 12 and Air Force played them to the final minute. The second best team (history and BCS-wise) in the ACC got blown out by Oklahoma.

Wait, I thought Pitt wasn't a bad team? Miami crushed a team that Utah had to struggle to beat.

I should have known that I should have stated that I hadn't called Pitt a joke prior to this. See above.

The ACC has looked a whole hell of a lot better then the MWC which is what our debate is about. My stats have shown that a lot more then yours.

What your stats don't show is that the ACC is a conference of complete underachievers that have had MANY a year (minus 3 teams) to do something and they haven't. Again, the stats I've given you have shown that the ACC is a complete joke. The MWC has/is only recently formed. There is a larger upside to the MWC than there is the ACC. The ACC have had their chance against the best and they have, as I've maintained, fallen flat on their asses. The MWC and the WAC have produced mixed results. That's better than the ACC can claim. Sorry.

That's fine if you want to be wrong. But if you continue to debate me on it then I will continue to reply because no logical thinker could concur that the MWC is better then the ACC.

How many people on this thread have agreed with you in our current debate? How many have agreed with me?

Homie, it has been impossible to know what you're talking about this entire debate. You jump around more then House of Pain. It really doesn't matter what you meant because the WAC is a far inferior conference to the ACC as well.

I'm not your "homie," first off. Second off, you KNEW I meant James Madison. You've claimed to be smart thus far, act like it.

 

[Big Sexy]

I gave you the numbers on winning percentage, season head to head, and bowl head to head. Do you still want to play dumb? Or do you want to admit that, by your criteria, the Pac-10 is better than the SEC? Again, this isn't my personal belief, but I'm using your criteria.

LOL how am I playing dumb? I asked what years those numbers were from. Is it the last 5 years, last 10. I believe that the SEC at times has been the best conference the last couple years, but there have also been years that the Pac 10 has been better and probably years that the Big 12 has been better. There isn't one dominant conference year in and year out, it changes every year. All I argued was that over the last five years I believe the ACC was better then the Big East and I used head to head match ups between the two to prove my point.

A down year? We won't escape the Pac-10 above .500. Every team has bottom feeder seasons. Even the "almighty" USC.

Haven't you been bitching this entire thread about me discussing future predictions and how we are supposed to be talking about right now? Right now USC is 4-0 and they are certainly capable of winning at least 5 more games. Will it happen? I have no clue, but the schedule they have isn't impossible. Washington, ASU, Cal, ND, and UCLA are all winnable games and even the games they aren't favored in they have the talent to pull off upsets.

Oklahoma is also the best/second best team in the Big 12 and Air Force played them to the final minute. The second best team (history and BCS-wise) in the ACC got blown out by Oklahoma.

And the very next week that same Air Force team barely beat a fairly shitty Wyoming team. Things change week to week. We can argue Utah barley beating Pitt at home and Miami crushing them on the road. We can argue North Carolina with half their team gone almost beating LSU. There are tons of what ifs and close games that probably shouldn't be close every single week. That isn't really a solid argument.

What your stats don't show is that the ACC is a conference of complete underachievers that have had MANY a year (minus 3 teams) to do something and they haven't. Again, the stats I've given you have shown that the ACC is a complete joke. The MWC has/is only recently formed. There is a larger upside to the MWC than there is the ACC. The ACC have had their chance against the best and they have, as I've maintained, fallen flat on their asses. The MWC and the WAC have produced mixed results. That's better than the ACC can claim. Sorry.

Wait a second.... just one more... sorry I can't stop laughing. Mr. "All that matters is what's happening right now" is discussing the past and future and everything in between in this one statement. Not only that but this isn't about which conference over or under achieves more then the other. This is all about which conference is better and the ACC in the past and present has been the all around better conference.

How many people on this thread have agreed with you? How many have agreed with me?

One has agreed with you. I have been green repped by multiple people for my posts in this thread so there's some that agree with me. If you go to the Sports bar thread you'll see a couple more. So yea, you probably shouldn't be playing that card.

I'm not your "homie," first off. Second off, you KNEW I meant James Madison. You've claimed to be smart thus far, act like it.

Once again I have no fucking clue what you are talking about half the time. It is impossible to keep track of any of your arguments because they are all over the place. You can't stay on the topic of our debate, you can't get your statements straight from post to post. Just give it up man. You seem to be making intelligent posts about other sports in the Sports Stadium but your college football knowledge and theories are just flawed.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

LOL how am I playing dumb? I asked what years those numbers were from. Is it the last 5 years, last 10. I believe that the SEC at times has been the best conference the last couple years, but there have also been years that the Pac 10 has been better and probably years that the Big 12 has been better. There isn't one dominant conference year in and year out, it changes every year. All I argued was that over the last five years I believe the ACC was better then the Big East and I used head to head match ups between the two to prove my point.

If you want to go head to head stats then you will have to admit here and now that the SEC is weaker than the Pac-10. I personally don't believe that, but since head to head stats are more important to you than anything else, head to head stats indicate that the Pac-10 has edge over the SEC.

Historically the SEC is the best conference, but over the last 12 years the Pac-10 has owned the match-ups.

As far as present alignments

Pac-10: .528% winning percentage

SEC: .532% winning percentage



But the Pac-10 has an 12-9 advantage in head to head match-up, but I'm willing to bet you won't call the Pac-10 the superior conference even though we are basically even in winning percentage, but we own the head to head and the bowl match-ups. We are 9-8 against the SEC.

You must have missed that one, SEVERAL TIMES

Haven't you been bitching this entire thread about me discussing future predictions and how we are supposed to be talking about right now? Right now USC is 4-0 and they are certainly capable of winning at least 5 more games. Will it happen? I have no clue, but the schedule they have isn't impossible. Washington, ASU, Cal, ND, and UCLA are all winnable games and even the games they aren't favored in they have the talent to pull off upsets.

Haven't you also been preaching about the unproven talent within the ACC? Something that, as of date, has yet to develop into fruition at any point, realignment or not?

And the very next week that same Air Force team barely beat a fairly shitty Wyoming team. Things change week to week. We can argue Utah barley beating Pitt at home and Miami crushing them on the road. We can argue North Carolina with half their team gone almost beating LSU. There are tons of what ifs and close games that probably shouldn't be close every single week. That isn't really a solid argument.

Agreed.

Wait a second.... just one more... sorry I can't stop laughing. Mr. "All that matters is what's happening right now" is discussing the past and future and everything in between in this one statement. Not only that but this isn't about which conference over or under achieves more then the other. This is all about which conference is better and the ACC in the past and present has been the all around better conference.

By which criteria? You've provided so many. Head to head, bowl wins, SOS, BCS match-ups.

One has agreed with you. I have been green repped by multiple people for my posts in this thread so there's some that agree with me. If you go to the Sports bar thread you'll see a couple more. So yea, you probably shouldn't be playing that card.

I've got my own green reps.

Once again I have no fucking clue what you are talking about half the time. It is impossible to keep track of any of your arguments because they are all over the place. You can't stay on the topic of our debate, you can't get your statements straight from post to post. Just give it up man. You seem to be making intelligent posts about other sports in the Sports Stadium but your college football knowledge and theories are just flawed.

I can and have been narrowing down our discussions little by little.