ACC vs QUAD

[What Would Jesus Do?]

For those with any Quad 1 wins, listed in order of Quad 1 W-L percentage. For the shutouts, listed in order of number of Quad games played (because at least they tried).

Team	Overall W-L	QUAD 1 Games	QUAD 1 W-L
Clemson	10-1	3	2-1
Duke	8-3	3	2-1
Virginia	9-2	4	2-2
Ga Tech	8-3	2	1-1
UNC	8-3	5	2-3
FSU	6-5	3	1-2
Va Tech	9-3	4	1-3
Notre Dame	5-7	4	0-4
NC State	8-3	3	0-3
Syracuse	8-3	3	0-3
Miami	9-2	2	0-2
Pitt	9-3	2	0-2
Louisville	5-7	2	0-2
Boston Coll	9-3	1	0-1
Wake Forest	8-3	1	0-1

 

[dtodd4475]

Yikes, 11-31 overall.

 

[Kool1234567]

I don’t know what is worse this stat or PFF rankings in college football…Just Garbage…

 

[Go Heels #1]

The quad records for the ACC as a whole don’t matter but they will effect your chances of getting in the final 68.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

2nd half of the league with 0 wins seems bad 😆. I like that we scheduled so many and are holding our own! Another job well done by Hubs and our Heels!

 

[DSouthr]

Major gripe I have with the Quad stuff is that a quad win should be considered what it was when the game was played. No matter what Tenn for example does, that should remain a quad 1 win because that was what Tenn was when we played them. Look at us last season, that team that gave us our first loss last season should have had a quad 1 win in their pocket because when we played that game we were what #1 or 2 in the nation, we flamed out later on. But on that night, that team had to play one of the strongest teams in the country per every expert in the business.

 

[dtodd4475]

Major gripe I have with the Quad stuff is that a quad win should be considered what it was when the game was played. No matter what Tenn for example does, that should remain a quad 1 win because that was what Tenn was when we played them. Look at us last season, that team that gave us our first loss last season should have had a quad 1 win in their pocket because when we played that game we were what #1 or 2 in the nation, we flamed out later on. But on that night, that team had to play one of the strongest teams in the country per every expert in the business.

I disagree with that. Not a legit status early for anyone early, just predictions at that point. They are what they were for the season. Injuries and players exiting are a factor, but I damn sure don't want "we thought they were going to be good" at that point counting. Win the games that get your tier, not perfect, but for me far better then opinion of who people think are worthy of a tier. Earn it with your full results.

 

[strummingram]

I disagree with that. Not a legit status early for anyone early, just predictions at that point. They are what they were for the season. Injuries and players exiting are a factor, but I damn sure don't want "we thought they were going to be good" at that point counting. Win the games that get your tier, not perfect, but for me far better then opinion of who people think are worthy of a tier. Earn it with your full results.

If that's the case, then the "quad" wins system isn't worth squat. It's the collective season, as a whole. If a team beats the #1 team on December 10th, then the headline says "Turd Burglar Tech beats #1 Arizona!" It doesn't say "... beats Arizona, but Arizona may not be #1 in a month."

I agree with the "full results", but those include ranked teams... if they WERE RANKED at the time you played them. Same goes with winning against a team that may be 1-9 at the time and go on a late season run. That late-season run benefits the team making the run, but it shouldn't affect the "tier" or the "quad" of any team that beat them when they were losing every game.

 

[dtodd4475]

If that's the case, then the "quad" wins system isn't worth squat. It's the collective season, as a whole. If a team beats the #1 team on December 10th, then the headline says "Turd Burglar Tech beats #1 Arizona!" It doesn't say "... beats Arizona, but Arizona may not be #1 in a month."

I agree with the "full results", but those include ranked teams... if they WERE RANKED at the time you played them. Same goes with winning against a team that may be 1-9 at the time and go on a late season run. That late-season run benefits the team making the run, but it shouldn't affect the "tier" or the "quad" of any team that beat them when they were losing every game.

My take is early rankings are just guesses. They have not done anything to earn it this year yet, too small a sample. If the team losses 14 games throughout the year their guess was wrong, they were not a tier 1. If it is late in the year the ranking they have is already earned with wins, it's not going to be so far off, from what they are. Rankings/opinions mean nothing. Win or lose, earn the tier.

If Arizona keeps losing to Turd Burglar Tech's then they were a fraud. If they don't and keep winning against quality opponents they will hold thier status, and Turd Burgler Tech's win will be seen as such.

 

[strummingram]

My take is early rankings are just guesses. They have not done anything to earn it this year yet, too small a sample. If the team losses 14 games throughout the year their guess was wrong, they were not a tier 1. If it is late in the year the ranking they have is already earned with wins, it's not going to be so far off, from what they are. Rankings/opinions mean nothing. Win or lose, earn the tier.

If Arizona keeps losing to Turd Burglar Tech's then they were a fraud. If they don't and keep winning against quality opponents they will hold thier status, and Turd Burgler Tech's win will be seen as such.

Then they shouldn't even start the "grading process" until January or something.

 

[dtodd4475]

Then they shouldn't even start the "grading process" until January or something.

Agreed there. It's just for conversation at this point, much like the rankings early on, they will move, but playing solid teams on neutral or away venue's gives a much better likelihood of tier 1's and 2's when all the talk is done in the end.

 

[DSouthr]

I disagree with that. Not a legit status early for anyone early, just predictions at that point. They are what they were for the season. Injuries and players exiting are a factor, but I damn sure don't want "we thought they were going to be good" at that point counting. Win the games that get your tier, not perfect, but for me far better then opinion of who people think are worthy of a tier. Earn it with your full results.

Appreciate your argument but I would offer that at any point of the season going in to a game is always a guess, teams play better and worse on given nights. A team that has the momentum of being really highly ranked plays with that confidence, makes them much harder to beat than when that confidence ebbs. I believe the credit should be for the game as it was played, not what it ends up being because the circumstance can and most often does change. For example, what if a highly ranked team that is quad 1 loses their key player and they falter, yet a team beat them when they had their best player, that win has to be kept quad 1 in my view.

 

[Bubspub88]

I think they need to have record of current quad wins/losses but also cumulative for the season. It is ridiculous to put any credibility into these rankings until at least January.

 

[dtodd4475]

Appreciate your argument but I would offer that at any point of the season going in to a game is always a guess, teams play better and worse on given nights. A team that has the momentum of being really highly ranked plays with that confidence, makes them much harder to beat than when that confidence ebbs. I believe the credit should be for the game as it was played, not what it ends up being because the circumstance can and most often does change. For example, what if a highly ranked team that is quad 1 loses their key player and they falter, yet a team beat them when they had their best player, that win has to be kept quad 1 in my view.

I agree, and stated injuries and lost players should be recognized. They do look at it on the committee, but if the team just was over hyped early compared to what they actually turned out to be. They were not a tier 1.

I had this discussion years ago in football with a Notre Dame buddy who swore that beating Michigan State in week 3 that year while Sparty was ranked #10 was a quality win. State had beat Eastern Michigan and some other directional small fry to that point. They went on to be .500, they were a bad team. He claimed, but they were top 10 when they played. I could not agree, was silly to me. State was bad that year, just over ranked early.

 

[Mrs.Jeans15]

How do we not have 3 quad 1 wins?

 

[dtodd4475]

How do we not have 3 quad 1 wins?

Arkansas is #97 currently, that win was at a neutral site. That is not tier 1. They need to get so.e wins and get into the top 50. Heck, they are barely a quad 2 at the moment.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Then they shouldn't even start the "grading process" until January or something.

There's an idea. But that would cut their advertising revenue, so it probably won't happen.