tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976198517916985323.post2768120930130045055..comments2008-09-02T13:18:44.651-04:00Zach Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10175135888314233420noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976198517916985323.post-44332516626645421012008-09-02T13:18:00.000-04:002008-09-02T13:18:00.000-04:00Zach and other readers,<BR/><BR/>About that "State of the ACC" entry... A lot has been going on in board discussions about cheering other ACC schools or just being glad that other ACC schools are being shown as the frauds they are, etc etc. Some folks say, "Root for other ACC teams in non-conference games so that the strength of the schedule looks better." Others say, "No, it is immaterial whether the conference is down or not as long as Wake is dominant." But one arguement no one is making is that the conference isn't down. We seem to all agree that we stink.<BR/><BR/>In several weeks, I might be ready to hear the greater part of this argument. But can we really tell this already? Regardless of quality of wins (since this has no relevance this early in the season), all we know is how many ACC teams won, and how many lost.<BR/><BR/>One thing I've noticed as folks are bashing the conference, rather than the teams, is that certain teams have been convienently left out of the equation to make the point that we stink. Teams like BC, GT and Wake have often been omited to make the point that wins by the remaining teams were so poor, they shouldn't count as wins. So it seems to me that the quality of wins argument is only working when it is detrimental to our conference as a whole. Why is that?<BR/><BR/>Finally, I am wondering that when faced with admitting that Wake IS a good program fielding a strong potential team, if it is easier for critics to state the conference stinks rather than admit how much ignorance or predjudice are informing their current perspective. <BR/><BR/>One thing I've been watching the use of in a lot of reports of the ACC's fall is the use of the word 'weak'. Every time I see it, its as if a giant highlighter was being used to remind me that Wake's favorite nickname around the league and beyond was (forgive me, Lord) WEAK FOREST. It is almost like the poor sportwriters have been deprived of their normal opportunity to spill this word from their lips or pens, and so instead the word needs expressing in other avenues. Hence, the WEAK ACC. What they want to say is, "Wake is still weak" and hence continue to harbor their old and historically maintained perspective that Wake can't be good is still true. Just everyone else is worse.<BR/><BR/>What really boggles my mind is that the same isn't happening to UConn. We beat them last year in a bowl game, yet they are consistently held up as examples of strength in the Big East. But if we're any good, everyone else must be weak. How does that happen?<BR/><BR/>Is anyone else seeing this, or is this my own little pet 'Wake conspiracy theory' making me look more like an NC State fan? I'll take my answer off the radio...acchalfbreednoreply@blogger.com