The ACC coaches are what they are and nothing changes that...regardless of whether the SEC keeps or loses every coach in the conference. To be the premier conference in the land, you have to earn it on the field rather than by having a certain list of coaches, which is your premise. Having 2 NCs in the past 11 years compared to the SEC's 8 of 11 doesn't cut it. If they add a few more NCs in the immediate future (let's say 2 of the next 3) then I'd agree that they would be top dog but not yet.
On a side note, using Mark Richt to bolster your argument is just plain stupid. He was an also ran in the SEC until he was fired! You actually used to laugh at him when he was our opponent, as did I and many others. Now that he's in the ACC, you think he's suddenly a coach worthy of praise?? And of course we lost a lot of wins when SOS, Miles and others left but some of these guys were successful but old coaches who were HCs for 25 or so years and whose best days were long behind them. The ACC lost about 500 wins with the losses of guys like Frank Beamer, Tom O'Brien and Jim Grobe. The truth, though, is that even when those 3 ACC coaches were still coaching in the ACC, the ACC wasn't the premier conference in football...and it's still not, regardless of what Jimbo or you say.
This is very well stated. I'll freely admit that the gap between the SEC and
anyone else is substantially less than it was during the 2005-2012 period, and that the ACC is probably as close as it's ever been. But I think it's a stretch to call it the premier conference because 2 teams have had great seasons over the past few years. Saying the SEC is Alabama and a bunch of "mehhh" type of programs is pretty accurate. But no more accurate than saying the ACC is Clemson and the noles, then a bunch of "meehh" programs of their own. Fedora was beaten by Smart in Kirby's first game as a HC. Louisville lost to Uk. I get that you can't put too much into one particular game. But then you'd have to apply the same standard to Clemson and their win over Alabama, which is really what the basis of this whole argument.
Someone above nailed it when saying that it required more than a brief run, or a few titles. A few years ago, this argument was all over the talk shows, but with the Pac12 as the supposed new best conference. That ended, and this likely will as well. If they do continue to have this level of success, then so be it. But it's way too early, and just a toolbag coach being a toolbag. Little more.
I'd actually argue that if Nebraska can get their act together, and assuming Harbaugh continues doing well(and stays put), the B10 could make as much or more of an argument as the ACC.
And are some really STILL claiming the East was markedly better in 2013 and 2014 than it has been the past 2 seasons? That has been debunked repeatedly. Pinkel may be a better coach than the guy Mizzou has now, but their winning the East in those seasons is somehow lauded, while our winning the East of the past 2 seasons is completely dismissed. That's ridiculous.