Always find it interesting how many non FSU (and a few pro ACC FSU) fans believe FSU actually hurt the ACC. Interesting perspective.
"If you are grading schools since their addition to the ACC from FSU onward you have something like this:
VT - A
Louisville - A
FSU - A-
BC - B
Pitt - C
Syracuse - C
Miami - D
VT gets an A because of their carrying the league in football when FSU went into the tank - neither was expected. The VT addition was expected just to boost football crowds at UNC and Duke.
Louisville gets an A so far, they added footprint and a good football and great basketball program.
FSU gets an A- only because they waited too long to retire Bobby. That happened at least three years too long and the entire league suffered at renegotiation time. (You can also make a case that they deserve the full A)
BC added a market and also played some good football at a time when FSU was in the tank.
So far Pitt and Syracuse have added a market, but not a great deal else.
Miami is the only bust. Their football program immediately went into the tank and that's hurt the ACC as much as FSU waiting too long to retire Bowden. Unlike FSU, they don't have the great decade before the program tanked or the last three years of FSU's resurgence.
As far as doing something the core ACC schools could not do - the core ACC schools, WF, Duke, NC State, UNC, and UVa do not have a major bowl win since 1962. Every time NC State, UVa, or UNC appeared to be close to getting over the hump, they didn't. The fundamental reason is that there are too many P-5 schools carving up NC, Va, and SC recruiting.
Clemson and MD were the only two schools to make major bowls between the time of de-emphasis of football in 1962 and the addition of FSU in 1992. "
Question for the 1953 teams.
"If you are grading schools since their addition to the ACC from FSU onward you have something like this:
VT - A
Louisville - A
FSU - A-
BC - B
Pitt - C
Syracuse - C
Miami - D
VT gets an A because of their carrying the league in football when FSU went into the tank - neither was expected. The VT addition was expected just to boost football crowds at UNC and Duke.
Louisville gets an A so far, they added footprint and a good football and great basketball program.
FSU gets an A- only because they waited too long to retire Bobby. That happened at least three years too long and the entire league suffered at renegotiation time. (You can also make a case that they deserve the full A)
BC added a market and also played some good football at a time when FSU was in the tank.
So far Pitt and Syracuse have added a market, but not a great deal else.
Miami is the only bust. Their football program immediately went into the tank and that's hurt the ACC as much as FSU waiting too long to retire Bowden. Unlike FSU, they don't have the great decade before the program tanked or the last three years of FSU's resurgence.
As far as doing something the core ACC schools could not do - the core ACC schools, WF, Duke, NC State, UNC, and UVa do not have a major bowl win since 1962. Every time NC State, UVa, or UNC appeared to be close to getting over the hump, they didn't. The fundamental reason is that there are too many P-5 schools carving up NC, Va, and SC recruiting.
Clemson and MD were the only two schools to make major bowls between the time of de-emphasis of football in 1962 and the addition of FSU in 1992. "
Question for the 1953 teams.
