Ranking the acc schools

College Search & Selection
121

<p>azwolfie,
Scheduling-are you kidding? How lame is that excuse!! How many years in a row will the ACC have to dominate the Big 10 in basketball in order for you to concede that the ACC is superior? I think most neutral observers would deduce that eight in a row is a pretty convincing record. </p>

<p>You Big 10 guys have no humility and respect for the other schools and conferences despite the reality that they regularly beat you. It's always because the basketball matchups favor the ACC. Or in football, that you are playing an away game in the Rose Bowl or there was too much time between Ohio State's last game and the Florida debacle. Grow up and lose that sense of entitlement. If the Big 10 wants to be acclaimed as the best, then prove it on the field or on the court.</p>

122

<p>Title 9 is ridiculous. Let's turn all this inter-conference wrath on the politicians who approved it!!</p>

123

<p>I agree with that. It's a national disgrace how many young men don't get to play their sport because not enough women want to play. </p>

<p>Political correctness at its worst.</p>

124

<p>Ranking the ACC....</p>

<ol>
<li>UMiami</li>
</ol>

<p>Everyone Else</p>

125

<p>In the ACC, U Miami is #1? In what?</p>

126

<p>Duke, UVA, UNC, Wake, Gtech, BC. With Duke way ahead as Stanford is in Pac10 rankings in academics.</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
So far it's been 8-0 ACC wins every year at random combination.

[/quote]
Stop lying.</p>

<p>1999
ACC wins 5-4</p>

<p>2000
ACC wins 5-4</p>

<p>2001
ACC wins 5-3</p>

<p>2002
ACC wins 5-4</p>

<p>2003
ACC wins 7-2</p>

<p>2004
ACC wins 7-2</p>

<p>2005
ACC wins 6-5</p>

<p>2006
ACC wins 8-3</p>

<p>No, the Big Ten isn't better than the ACC. But the difference isn't as large as the scores make it seem, due to scheduling this year. What if UNC went to the Kohl Center? What if Duke went to OSU? If Indiana played Georgia Tech? </p>

<p>The matchups would be much more even if the top teams played each other, rather than the top team in the Big Ten playing a mediocre opponent, allowing the top ACC opponents to play inferior Big Ten opponents on their home court?</p>

128

<p>Eight years. Eight victories by the ACC. No victories for the Big 10. Isn't that 8-0? And scheduling is the culprit for this? And the current margin of difference between ACC and Big 10 basketball is larger than ever. Man, give it up. The Big 10 just hasn't delivered where it matters-on the court.</p>

129

<p>OK, it's settled. ACC is better than Big 10 in sports in general and hoops in particular. I think it's far more interesting to discuss whom the Big 10 could add to make it a nice round playoffish 12 schools (I've heard Notre Dame, Pitt, Nebraska, Iowa State, Cinci, Miami (Ohio), Missouri, Syracuse, and Louisville. I say bring in a school that will elevate the Big 10's academic reputation. Since U of Chicago is unlikely to bring back Jay Berwanger and the single wing offense, I think the only likely candidates are Notre Dame and (hold on to your hats)...U of Toronto.</p>

130

<p>Toronto?? If Big 10 wants to add one more, they would want a school with good bb/fb, not figure skating....</p>

131

<p>add pitts would be a good match :D
but then it would be big 12 (already taken) :D</p>

132

<p>there is no way pitt would leave the big east</p>

133

<p>Pitt would LOVE to get invited into the Big 10.</p>

134

<p>I agree that Pitt would be a good choice. Sports-wise, Cincinnatti and Louisville might be good additions, but don't know if they would be up to the academic level of most of the other Big 10 schools. Money is obviously the key factor, though, so not sure how many new viewers these moves would provide for Big 10 sports. The ACC really helped itself financially with the expansion to 12 as it made possible the football playoff (big payday) and also expanded the conference north (BC) and south (Miami) and definitely increased the athletic strength of the school while modestly adding to its academic strength.</p>

135

<p>The academic level of the big ten? its not the ivy league we are talking about here.</p>

136

<p>The Big 10 has 2 of the top 4 research universities in the US and the academic/research component is a major factor in selecting members. It was a major reason Penn State joined.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/AboutCIC.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/AboutCIC.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

137

<p>If you take graduate (research) schools into account, then Big10 is better than ACC. However, Big10/ACC conferences are about collegiate (undergrad) sports.</p>

138

<p>is the University Athletic Association (UAA).</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>The entire UAA membership is Top 35 academically. </p>

<p>Brandeis University
Carnegie Mellon University
Case Western Reserve University
Emory University
New York University
University of Chicago
University of Rochester
Washington University in St. Louis</p>

<p>Johns Hopkins was originally in the UAA, but left it.</p>

<p>Other than not being seriously old, these are equivalent to Ivy schools. The Ivy League, sans sports scholarships and football bowl games, is more like NCAA Division III anyway.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.uaa.rochester.edu/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uaa.rochester.edu/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

139

<p>College sports allows for grad students in their 5th season (or 6th sometimes). Also college sports are supported by all students--even some grad students. And faculty/admins.</p>

140

<p>dajada -
[quote]
I don't mean to cherry pick a single year, but what is happeniing now is probably most relevant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But not for ONE YEAR - 2005 wasn't that long ago (I wasn't disputing that the ACC is better than the B10 in baseball - but rather the overextending claim that it is the best conference in baseball - or other sports such as tennis - where the lead changes almost on a yearly basis).</p>

<p>chaoses -
[quote]
ncaa has divisions, some colligiate sports don't that's the difference! it's not as popular that's why there aren't many schools playing and it ends up having 1 or maybe 2 division, not 3. that's why ncaa are the more 'well known' sports because there are many school competing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry - but that's not what you initially stated (you intially stated that they weren't NCAA sports - which they are).</p>

<p>chaoses -
[quote]
wow that's it?! did u see the list I posted up there? taking back about 15 years of college soccer history? did u see the women's championship too? (and don't claim that women's sport is less important than men's).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you always have a problem with words (and remembering what you stated previously)?</p>

<p>You stated that ONE team doesn't make a conference good in a sport (implying that the B10 has had only 1 good team in soccer) - I merely pointed out that such as statement was inherently FALSE.</p>

<p>chaoses -
[quote]
you think u know more soccer than me?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Grow up! It doesn't matter who knows more about soccer (I may or you may - who cares?). Your previous statement (like many others of yours) was flat-out FALSE (and if you really knew about soccer - you wouldn't have made such a mistake).</p>

<p>As for FB - the B10 managed to go 2-1 against the SEC this year (and is 8-6 against the SEC the past 5 yrs in bowls).</p>

<p>As for the ACC - it is has a .400 winning % against the B10 the last 2 deacdes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree that Pitt would be a good choice. Sports-wise, Cincinnatti and Louisville might be good additions, but don't know if they would be up to the academic level of most of the other Big 10 schools. Money is obviously the key factor, though, so not sure how many new viewers these moves would provide for Big 10 sports.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The B10 would never add Pitt. No new market (and Pitt's FB program doesn't bring in enough revenue).</p>