Yuck for several reasons.
We are in rivalry week and Yet Another NC State Blog is bringing the (reeeeeeeeeally long) questions this week so check his site out on Wednesday for the recap.
1) The ACC scheduling gods really did their best this year to ensure a
true “rivalry” week to conclude the season. Here in North Carolina,
the two large state schools (N.C. State and Carolina) and the two
smaller private schools (Duke and Wake) face off against one another.
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Virginia and Virginia
Tech all face off against in-state foes. Even the Boston College/
Maryland game has a twinge of regional flavor to it, pitting the two
northern-most schools of the ACC against one another. On paper, is
this the best rivalry week lineup in recent memory?
From a matchup standpoint, it’s not most appealing of a rivalry week. Georgia Tech should steamroll UGA, Clemson has a decided advantage in matchups with SC, Virginia Tech/VA probably won’t be all that great, and UNC is playing so much better than NC State. I think it could have been if the teams were playing better on both sides with how great they scheduled it–but no.
2) Clemson and Georgia Tech will face one another in the ACC title
game. Do you think both teams facing out-of-conference rivals the week
prior will help or hurt either team’s performance in the big game,
depending on the outcomes of these rivalry games?
For each team, I think it is better than playing some scrub team with the conference game already clinched. It keeps the intensity/focus level up as you are facing your in-state rival and it makes it a lot harder to overlook that team going into the ACC Championship Game. The issue is putting too much into it and suffering a big injury going into the game–don’t think Georgia Tech won’t be watching the Clemson-South Carolina game for injuries and possibly playing it a little safer with UGA that night if Clemson sustains an injury.
3) It’s the tail end of the season and you know what that means:
Coaching Carousel Time! I’m a firm believer in giving a coach five
years to prove his worth before even considering a change…at least I
*was*, until I saw how quickly Paul Johnson and Brian Kelly turned
their respective programs into top-10 squads. With an ever-increasing
desire from fanbases to WIN NOW, is five years still “industry
standard,” or can coaches legitimately be expected to show marked
improvement in four years or less before finding a pink slip in their
inbox? How bad would a situation have to be to fairly jettison a head
coach before year five?
Look at Clemson, possibly Bowden could have done what Dabo did this season with how inconsistent the Atlantic has been–but Swinney brought a whole new mentality to Clemson football and they are going to Tampa now. The five years theory really should depend upon the talent level he is left with–I don’t know how you gauge that though, but in some cases, it is clear. Sticking with the Clemson example, there is no way that Dabo gets 5 years if he went 6-6 four years in a row. Ultimately, there is no fairness in college coaching these days–you either win or your gone. I would say it is down to 3 years now for the standard and even that is kinda shaky.
4) Certainly the four-letter network likes to pimp the big rivalries–
Ohio State Vs. Michigan, Texas Vs. Oklahoma, etc.–but I think the ACC
has quite a few solid rivalries that never get the coverage they
deserve. Where do you think your school’s rivalry rates in terms of
passion, prestige and what’s at stake each season? What steps–beyond
the obvious “win more”–could be taken to improve the visibility of
your team’s rivalry matchup every year?
Basically what BC Interruption said.
5) Few rivalries in the South have as much tradition, passion and
generated as much heated discussion as a good ol’ fashioned barbecue
debate. Here in North Carolina it’s Eastern versus Lexington style,
and a good many shouting matches have arisen between folks east of
I-95 and those godless heathens that put ketchup and brown sugar in
their “dip.” No doubt similar verbal wars have been waged on behalf of
your favorite barbecue, as well, so the question is this: In an all-
out, Armageddon-type scenario where the righteous are separated from
the unholy on the basis of what type of barbecue they bring to the
judgment table, what style of barbecue are you bringing and who–among
the purveyors of this style of ‘cue in your state–will you select to
be your Champion?
This is quite an awesome question. BBQ is so different from one part of the country to another. My parents grew up in Upstate NY and BBQ to them was chicken in a special vinegar-based sauce(good stuff too). In Memphis where I once lived, it was all about Gridley’s. In South Carolina now, there is a BBQ place on every corner seemingly that is not occupied by a church. My favorite now is the pork BBQ with a tomato-based sauce at Ole Country Smokehouse in Anderson, SC as mustard-based is gross(though they offer this also).
Thanks for reading and check out Yet Another NC State Blog for the recap!
