This weekend Miami and Florida State play each other in prime time on ABC. They both come in ranked in the top 25. While it is not the epic game it was in the 1990s, this is a pretty big one. Both at the moment are considered the favorites to meet for the ACC Championship.
When the conference expanded in 2004/2005 it was largely thought that Miami and Florida State would lead the ACC into football prominence. The Canes and Noles were split into opposite divisions, and the first five ACC Championship games were played in Florida. The Miami and Florida State programs declined through the later part of the decade, but now appear on the upswing. Are we inching closer to Miami and Florida State dominating the ACC? Is that even good for the ACC?
I'm having a tough time with this question. Florida State running all over the ACC in the 1990s did nothing to enhance to conferences reputation. In fact most critics felt Florida State was a great team playing inferior competition.
On the other hand I'm not sure there are any other teams in the ACC capable of being consistent top 10 programs. Miami and FSU have the rich Florida recruiting base to pull from, and both have nationally recognized names with fairly recent national titles. (FSU 1999; Miami 2001) That's not to say another ACC team can't rise to a top 10 level, but with down Nole and Canes teams the last few years no team has stepped up to really become a national power.
The conference as a whole needs Miami and Florida State to be good in the way UNC and Duke are good in basketball. This means bigger television revenues and better bowls for everyone. The ACC can finally leverage football with their basketball tradition.
The bottom line is that in the best scenario Florida State and Miami would return to their former glory. In addition the rest of the ACC must elevate themselves specifically in non-conference matchups and from time to time challenge for ACC Titles as well.
When the conference expanded in 2004/2005 it was largely thought that Miami and Florida State would lead the ACC into football prominence. The Canes and Noles were split into opposite divisions, and the first five ACC Championship games were played in Florida. The Miami and Florida State programs declined through the later part of the decade, but now appear on the upswing. Are we inching closer to Miami and Florida State dominating the ACC? Is that even good for the ACC?
I'm having a tough time with this question. Florida State running all over the ACC in the 1990s did nothing to enhance to conferences reputation. In fact most critics felt Florida State was a great team playing inferior competition.
On the other hand I'm not sure there are any other teams in the ACC capable of being consistent top 10 programs. Miami and FSU have the rich Florida recruiting base to pull from, and both have nationally recognized names with fairly recent national titles. (FSU 1999; Miami 2001) That's not to say another ACC team can't rise to a top 10 level, but with down Nole and Canes teams the last few years no team has stepped up to really become a national power.
The conference as a whole needs Miami and Florida State to be good in the way UNC and Duke are good in basketball. This means bigger television revenues and better bowls for everyone. The ACC can finally leverage football with their basketball tradition.
The bottom line is that in the best scenario Florida State and Miami would return to their former glory. In addition the rest of the ACC must elevate themselves specifically in non-conference matchups and from time to time challenge for ACC Titles as well.
