John Feinstein weighs in on ACC Football in his article at the Washington Post and it isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows.
Those who are paid to promote the ACC, and there are plenty of them, will point out that the ACC currently has four ranked teams (!!!) led by Clemson at No. 6 and Florida State at No. 9. Duke and Pittsburgh are also in the top 25 this week.
Wow.
Now, let’s look a little closer at all the numbers. Clemson and Florida State have one combined victory over a top 25 team — Clemson’s win at home against Notre Dame in the midst of a monsoon. The Irish, who are a pseudo-ACC football team, have also built their record on the strength of wins against less-than-stellar teams. They haven’t beaten anyone who is currently ranked and have played two road games: an escape against 2-4 Virginia and their sloppy loss at Clemson.
Florida State opened its season with wins over two powerhouses: Texas State and South Florida. Clemson played an equally tough early schedule, hosting Wofford and Appalachian State.
Feinstein goes on to say that the 5-1 trio of Duke, Pittsburgh, and UNC don't matter since they have exactly zero notable wins. Basically, the winner of FSU/Clemson on November 7th will make the College Football Playoff, and Feinstein doesn't understand why.
Regardless of the outcome of that game, the ACC is a two-team, one-game-that-matters each year conference. Does it matter who wins the Coastal Division? Only to the team that does and gets to go to Charlotte and get hammered by Clemson or Florida State.
In terms of national relevance, Feinstein may be right. Of course, I'm not sure what his point exactly is. I could almost write the same article about the SEC though. Replace Clemson with LSU and FSU with Alabama, throw some shade at the SEC East and we're basically barking up the same tree.
Feinstein is basically saying that the second tier ACC teams aren't blue bloods. If Miami, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech were each 5-1, regardless of the oppoents, this wouldn't be a story.
