The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Glad to see him get off to a winning start in his return.

I saw something on either ESPN or CBS second-guessing his final play.  On 4th down, with 10-15 seconds left, inside midfield, UNC took a knee, stopping the clock and handing the ball over to USC-E for a potential Hail Mary play.

From what Ive read its possible the QB didnt realize it was 4th down

Which is still a bone head move

anyway it was the first game and Macks very young team grew up a little bit

Im looking forward to following UNC

The fourth down play was bone headed.  I could not tell which coach "called it", if any.  Brown appeared upset about it.  It was clear on first down that they could not run out the clock by kneeling.  I think they should have run running plays up the gut.  They take more time off the clock, and then punted with 5 seconds left.  You have to be able to punt the ball consistently.  Punt it OOB 30 yards down field.

not a hoops fan I guess

You know, folks say stuff like this, but that always implies that another team should be 4-8. It's a zero sum game.

There are so many middlin teams in the ACC (and really only one good one) that in any given year, ANY of them could or should be 8-9 win teams.  But they can't ALL be, because they play each other.

To get 8 wins in the ACC, assuming you sweep your 4 OOC games, you still have to go 4-4 in conference.  But in reality some teams are going to go 2-6, and others are going to go 6-2.

Similar story for Illinois, if they're winning 9 games per year, who in the B1G are they knocking down a few rungs in order to get there?  I believe that Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska should all be 9-win teams in a year.  But that doesn't leave much room for Illinois or Purdue or Minnesota.

Excellent point.  It should be an obvious observation but it's easy to overlook.  

Good point about the zero sum game. You can’t have 65 P5 teams winning 9 games per year.  Maybe it’s antiquated but I still look at how many good football players live close to your campus.  I still think you can make the argument Wisconsin and Iowa are annual overachievers.  Nebraska on an all time basis is a huge overachiever.  West Virginia is an overachiever, imo. There’s no glaring reason why WVU shouldn’t go 4-8 every year.

I do think UNC is a school who has perennially underachieved.  They have a great athletic  brand, good weather, and they are the flagship school in a state that produces a lot of good football players.  UCLA should never have a 20 year stretch like they have had, imo.

Excellent points.  Like anything, you can take a utility-based view and evaluate the "natural resources" a program might have.  History can alter that though, because the "bluebloods" were largely established in a bygone era of the sport.  And in that bygone era, the natural resources weren't necessarily distributed as they currently are, nor were the priorities on things like weather or scholastic reputation.  Yet those major helmet teams were able to build up a lot of corporate "goodwill" to their brand based on OTHER factors that aren't necessarily important to the sport anymore.

If you did a hard reset of college football today in 2019, started everything over from zero, would Nebraska and Michigan be bluebloods?  Would they be able to attract and retain top talent and coaching?  

Anyway, food for thought on a Tuesday afternoon.

The question I have is do you consider Clemson a blue blood?  Or Florida?  Or LSU? 

LSU - yes

Florida - no

Clemson - no

at least thats my view

The question I have is do you consider Clemson a blue blood?  Or Florida?  Or LSU? 

No, no, and no.  Nor Miami, nor Florida State.  Take a look at the top 10 D1-A teams in total wins and the top 10 in win%.  The teams that are common on both lists are your bluebloods.