2011 College Football "The Real been hacked!!!!" .

Speaking of John Swofford and the woes that is ACC football.....

[h2]ACC commish: ‘We need to win more of our high-profile games’[/h2]
By Graham Watson

acc_commissioner_we_need_to_win_more_of_our_highprofile_games.jpg


John Swofford isn't immune to criticism about the Atlantic Coast Conference.

As much as Swofford, the ACC commissioner, would like to, he hasn't been sticking his head in the sand while the rest of the world points out the fallings of his conference against major opponents and in BCS games. He knows that's the %+*!% in his conference's armor and until it starts winning some of its big games more consistently, he conference will never be mentioned in the same breath as most of his "big six" brethren.

"Obviously, we need to win more of our high-profile games against non-conference opponents," Swofford said during his media session Sunday. "That's the one thing we haven't done enough of in recent years. We've had some of it, but not enough of it. For us to gain the kind of respect we want for Atlantic Coast Conference football, those are the kind of games we need to win going forward."

The last time an ACC team beat an opponent that finished the year ranked in the top 10 was when Virginia Tech defeated West Virginia in 2005. Since then, the conference has beaten just four teams during the regular season that finished the year in the Top 25.
http://
When the ACC added Miami and Virginia Tech in 2004 and Boston College in 2005, many thought the conference would be in a better place than it is now. But the conference has mired in mediocrity. The only consistent team during that span has been Virginia Tech and even the Hokies have struggled against many of the big-name opponents. Virginia Tech has won at least 10 games each of the last seven seasons, but the Hokies haven't finished higher than seventh in the national polls.

acc_commissioner_we_need_to_win_more_of_our_highprofile_games.jpg
"From a national perspective, we haven't achieved competitively at the level expected," Swofford told CBSSports.com. "We think we have more depth and are a better football conference than we have been in our history. Have we reached our potential football wise as a 12-member conference? No. I don't think we have. I think we will when our top couple of teams is in the national championship picture and hopefully winning and if and when we have a second team in [a] BCS bowl. In time that will come."

BCS bowls are another point of contention for the conference. The ACC is 2-11 in BCS games overall and 1-5 since expansion. Virginia Tech holds the conference's lone win -- a 20-7 Orange Bowl triumph over Cincinnati.

"If there was [a reason], I wish I knew what it was. It's been frustrating at times, quite honestly," Swofford said. "A lot of those games have been very close games. Obviously Stanford pulled away from Virginia Tech [in last year's Orange Bowl], but you look back at some of those games. You just shake your head starting with Florida State's triple overtime loss to Penn State [in the 2005 Orange Bowl]."

At least Swofford can acknowledge that his conference needs to get better if it wants to keep up with the rest of the "big six." The ACC has several opportunities to put itself on the national map this year with marquee games such as Oklahoma and Florida State on Sept. 17, Clemson at South Carolina on Nov. 26, and Georgia at Georgia Tech on Nov. 26 among others.

Also, if things work out as planned, the ACC could have a couple teams in the mix for a national title in Virginia Tech and Florida State. Both are expected to have superb seasons and Florida State has the nonconference schedule to make it a national championship contender.
 
Speaking of John Swofford and the woes that is ACC football.....

[h2]ACC commish: ‘We need to win more of our high-profile games’[/h2]
By Graham Watson

acc_commissioner_we_need_to_win_more_of_our_highprofile_games.jpg


John Swofford isn't immune to criticism about the Atlantic Coast Conference.

As much as Swofford, the ACC commissioner, would like to, he hasn't been sticking his head in the sand while the rest of the world points out the fallings of his conference against major opponents and in BCS games. He knows that's the %+*!% in his conference's armor and until it starts winning some of its big games more consistently, he conference will never be mentioned in the same breath as most of his "big six" brethren.

"Obviously, we need to win more of our high-profile games against non-conference opponents," Swofford said during his media session Sunday. "That's the one thing we haven't done enough of in recent years. We've had some of it, but not enough of it. For us to gain the kind of respect we want for Atlantic Coast Conference football, those are the kind of games we need to win going forward."

The last time an ACC team beat an opponent that finished the year ranked in the top 10 was when Virginia Tech defeated West Virginia in 2005. Since then, the conference has beaten just four teams during the regular season that finished the year in the Top 25.
http://
When the ACC added Miami and Virginia Tech in 2004 and Boston College in 2005, many thought the conference would be in a better place than it is now. But the conference has mired in mediocrity. The only consistent team during that span has been Virginia Tech and even the Hokies have struggled against many of the big-name opponents. Virginia Tech has won at least 10 games each of the last seven seasons, but the Hokies haven't finished higher than seventh in the national polls.

acc_commissioner_we_need_to_win_more_of_our_highprofile_games.jpg
"From a national perspective, we haven't achieved competitively at the level expected," Swofford told CBSSports.com. "We think we have more depth and are a better football conference than we have been in our history. Have we reached our potential football wise as a 12-member conference? No. I don't think we have. I think we will when our top couple of teams is in the national championship picture and hopefully winning and if and when we have a second team in [a] BCS bowl. In time that will come."

BCS bowls are another point of contention for the conference. The ACC is 2-11 in BCS games overall and 1-5 since expansion. Virginia Tech holds the conference's lone win -- a 20-7 Orange Bowl triumph over Cincinnati.

"If there was [a reason], I wish I knew what it was. It's been frustrating at times, quite honestly," Swofford said. "A lot of those games have been very close games. Obviously Stanford pulled away from Virginia Tech [in last year's Orange Bowl], but you look back at some of those games. You just shake your head starting with Florida State's triple overtime loss to Penn State [in the 2005 Orange Bowl]."

At least Swofford can acknowledge that his conference needs to get better if it wants to keep up with the rest of the "big six." The ACC has several opportunities to put itself on the national map this year with marquee games such as Oklahoma and Florida State on Sept. 17, Clemson at South Carolina on Nov. 26, and Georgia at Georgia Tech on Nov. 26 among others.

Also, if things work out as planned, the ACC could have a couple teams in the mix for a national title in Virginia Tech and Florida State. Both are expected to have superb seasons and Florida State has the nonconference schedule to make it a national championship contender.
 
Tate will either change his mind in a few days or never show up to campus.  He's got some serious issues.

I am rooting for him, though.

-----
 
Tate will either change his mind in a few days or never show up to campus.  He's got some serious issues.

I am rooting for him, though.

-----
 
Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

yes, they admitted it was a mistake and re calculated the rankings

What are they based on now though? Rutgers has 1 4*, 10 3*, with an average of 3.00 and they're ranked 30th. VT has 3 4*, 16 3* with an average of 3.00 and we're ranked 40th? Mizzou has 2 4* and 12 3* and they're ranked 21st? Also how the hell is Cal that high up (24th) with only 4 recruits? This $*$# makes no sense. Why don't they just use the numerical rankings (5.5-5.7=3*, 5.8+ =4*) and generate the points based off of that? They should make the point formula public IMO.
 
Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

yes, they admitted it was a mistake and re calculated the rankings

What are they based on now though? Rutgers has 1 4*, 10 3*, with an average of 3.00 and they're ranked 30th. VT has 3 4*, 16 3* with an average of 3.00 and we're ranked 40th? Mizzou has 2 4* and 12 3* and they're ranked 21st? Also how the hell is Cal that high up (24th) with only 4 recruits? This $*$# makes no sense. Why don't they just use the numerical rankings (5.5-5.7=3*, 5.8+ =4*) and generate the points based off of that? They should make the point formula public IMO.
 
Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

yes, they admitted it was a mistake and re calculated the rankings

What are they based on now though? Rutgers has 1 4*, 10 3*, with an average of 3.00 and they're ranked 30th. VT has 3 4*, 16 3* with an average of 3.00 and we're ranked 40th? Mizzou has 2 4* and 12 3* and they're ranked 21st? Also how the hell is Cal that high up (24th) with only 4 recruits? This $*$# makes no sense. Why don't they just use the numerical rankings (5.5-5.7=3*, 5.8+ =4*) and generate the points based off of that? They should make the point formula public IMO.



It's a formula that factors in a certain number of recruits (top 20?). It has been posted on the rivals recruiting board before.

Edit: found it

only take the top 20 prospects in this formula, ordered by # Stars descending.

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big calculation, described below

CALCULATION OF N:
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...

--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Fullback: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--Tight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Cornerback: 40
--Safety: 30
--Athlete: 25
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars -
> 3)) to N.
 
Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

yes, they admitted it was a mistake and re calculated the rankings

What are they based on now though? Rutgers has 1 4*, 10 3*, with an average of 3.00 and they're ranked 30th. VT has 3 4*, 16 3* with an average of 3.00 and we're ranked 40th? Mizzou has 2 4* and 12 3* and they're ranked 21st? Also how the hell is Cal that high up (24th) with only 4 recruits? This $*$# makes no sense. Why don't they just use the numerical rankings (5.5-5.7=3*, 5.8+ =4*) and generate the points based off of that? They should make the point formula public IMO.



It's a formula that factors in a certain number of recruits (top 20?). It has been posted on the rivals recruiting board before.

Edit: found it

only take the top 20 prospects in this formula, ordered by # Stars descending.

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big calculation, described below

CALCULATION OF N:
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...

--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Fullback: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--Tight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Cornerback: 40
--Safety: 30
--Athlete: 25
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars -
> 3)) to N.
 
Some stuff I've read is saying Jim Delaney has been a big part of osu getting out of the worst sanctions. Also sounds like the PAC 12 commish isn't gonna take it lying down.
 
Some stuff I've read is saying Jim Delaney has been a big part of osu getting out of the worst sanctions. Also sounds like the PAC 12 commish isn't gonna take it lying down.
 
Back
Top Bottom