hokieZ71

Getting Wake and UVA twice adds 3 Q1 games and a Q2 game. Pitt would be a borderline Q3/4 game. Whatever the reasons, we were gifted a great opponent to miss this year.

My only gripe is UVA at home with students off campus and getting 3 of first 4 at home with no students.. But we won that game, and we had Stanford dead to rights before we blew it, so…🤷‍♂️

2nd year together for all 5, and 3rd for Hammond, Johnson and Schutt. Shouldn’t that make it easier to target players to bring in? (And less costly) Being as the roles you need incoming players to fill are more supporting roles instead of 25-30 mpg roles? I am guessing of course it will take some $$ to retain that starting 5, but if they are returning to a starting role where they are familiar and have had success, it has to make it easier to get them back.

Think Young is going 100% European and transfer portal over the summer? If Neo leaves and Bedford/Lawal graduate, we will still have a good starting 5 (Hammond/Schutt/Johnson/Hansberry/Gurdak) with a couple reserves with some experience (Pasha and Jones), but where does the roster get filled out with no HS recruits?

I prefer the NFL model, and I think there should be 64 teams in this league. With set routes to playoff spots just like the NFL based purely on winning percentage, a salary cap, contracts tying players to teams, all of that. No selection committee. Just finish top two in an eight team league and make a 16-team playoff. League champs get home games in the first round. It’s very simple. Notre Dame should be in this league. And the rest of college athletics should go back to what it has always been before. I think there should be 10 school limits to these “non-football” conferences. Double round robin in hoops, all of that. Notre Dame should be in a Big East style league here, with BC, DePaul, Syracuse, UConn, St. John’s, Georgetown, Providence, Seton Hall and Villanova. I’d watch that hoops league and it’d be some good ball. Do the same with all the other regions in the game. Put Maryland back in the ACC. Put VT back in a Metro with Louisville, West Virginia, Pitt, Memphis, Miami, Florida State and a few others. I mean, really, we aren’t an ACC school or fanbase. It’s not “VT”. But neither is Miami, Pitt or Florida State. Big time football has got to separate from the rest. Just my pie in the sky attitude.

And I’m not saying it’s bad, just that it is behind defensive ratings on several metrics that I look at. And if we can’t really expect defensive efficiency to improve, then offensive efficiency is all that’s left, if we are to improve as a team. Is it any one glaring issue on offense? Turnovers? Chemistry? Lack of time together due to so many new pieces? Changing lineups due to injury? Players maybe not in their best position?

Their undisputed best team, far and away better than the rest of the B12, bankrolled to a degree possibly unfathomable to the rest of the B12 outside of the Mormon Army, completely outclassed by the #3 B10 team. The further the B12 gets from having Texas and OU, the worse it will get. This is a glimpse into the future of the ACC when Miami and FSU go to the B10 and Clemson +3 gets snapped up by the SEC. VT better do whatever is necessary to be part of that +3 with Clemson, or it’s the wilderness for the Hokies.

The selection committee knows these teams have more games to play and who they are going to play. They absolutely factor that into their rankings. When they bumped Miami one spot below ND it was guaranteed that Miami would jump ND when the final selections were announced. It’s another way this system stinks.

Cmon, I respect you, but you gotta lay down the B12 banner on this one. BYU didn’t deserve a spot over Miami. Nor did they deserve a spot over Bama. BYU beat nobody that mattered and got crushed twice by the one team they played that did matter.

The way the system was set up, every bid that was given was correct. Even Bama. ND lost to both aTm and Miami, they didn’t deserve to get in. BYU lost to TT twice by lopsided results. Bama actually beat UGA once. That was the difference between BYU, ND, Miami and Bama. All of them had warts, but Bama actually beat somebody. Miami actually beat somebody. It creates arguments because the system is clearly not effective enough. But the teams that got in were correct under the system we have. Tulane and JMU had no business being in over ND, BYU or Vanderbilt. But because the way the system was set up, they absolutely should have been included because they both were more deserving than Duke. The system itself is nonsensical, but it worked the way it was set up. 🤷‍♂️ Florida State got screwed a couple years ago. Winning a conference title game to go 13-0 and get jumped by two 1-loss teams? No, that’s not right. BYU, getting crushed for the second time by a Top 10 team? They didn’t deserve a bid. ND beating nobody, but thinking it deserved to get in? Nope…

This whole thing sucks because all of the contrived ways teams can get selected. It sucks long enough and fans will reject it, unless it has continuous expansion like the NCAA tournament. So…either it becomes auto bids, with set conferences getting set bids or it becomes a 32 team playoff in a decade or two. And hey, we all make it then!

Along with G5 bid, the ND independence will fall at some point. Soon enough, the SEC and B1G will get 6 bids each to the CFP and the Big 12 will get 4. The SEC and Big 12 add four ACC teams each and the B1G adds ND and FSU. The rest of the ACC becomes a G5 league like Oregon State and Washington State now are in the Pac-whatever. 20-team conferences are absolute perfection from a scheduling and rivalry standpoint. You can split into 10 team divisions (comprised of two rotating 5-team rivalry pods), play 9 conference games against the same opponents, and have the top 3 teams get bids in the P2 and the top 2 teams get bids on the Big 12. The tiebreakers are simple because the schedules are exactly the same. And the seedings for the 16-team playoff will be done by a committee, which is where your OOC wins matter. The entire first round will be played at home campuses and those will be like gold. The race for the playoff bids will be completely transparent (and GRIPPING) due to the mathematical nature of tiebreakers amongst equal schedules.

IF VT goes 10-8 in the ACC. VT goes 9-9, hello NIT.

Tough luck, Irish.

** Edited by hokieZ71 at 11/27/2025, 7:52:19 AM

Clemson is still top 30 in KenPom while SMU picked up a good win over Butler, moving them up to 52 on KenPom. UVA had a dominant win and moved into the Top 40, while Syracuse blew out Drexel to move into the Top 50, giving the ACC eleven teams in KenPom’s Top 60 with Wake Forest checking in at 57 and Miami at 60. It’s still early and Thanksgiving tournament games + ACC/SEC challenge games will be major, but it’s not the right time to start bashing the ACC. Wait and see where we are in a couple weeks when the first NET rankings are published. The more teams the ACC has in the Top 60 by then, the more chances for road Quad 1 wins we may likely have. I would say the ACC is well ahead of where it was last year.

The weight of an independent ND does count for half a conference. At least in that it shifts the power to either side. The problem with that is I don’t know if ND’s independence meshes well with the future of the ACC and B12. So I don’t know which side the 2.5 favors.

It also sets the stage for the SEC adding 4 more schools and going to 5-team divisions. Texas/OU/aTm/Missouri (Kansas will be #5) LSU/Arkansas/OleMiss/MissSt (I think Kentucky shifts here when 3 ACC schools are added) Bama/Auburn/Tennessee/Vandy (I see UVA or VT headed here) Florida/UGA/South Carolina/Kentucky (Clemson and UNC end up here with Kentucky shifting to the LSU division)

If you are suggesting that Adidas just has money to throw at every school that signs for them, and all that needs to happen is for Whit to just call up Adidas and grab a couple million a year…sorry, that’s not happening. It’s Adidas who are being strategic and calling up a few select schools and offering some bags. SEC and Big Ten contenders would certainly be the primary schools they would call. From VT’s perspective, we are probably in a state where we can select our apparel partner and get free gear but no money. So at that point, it’s picking the apparel brand that flashes best with recruits, which is undoubtedly Nike. This whole apparel deal, from a “financial edge” perspective, is a non starter for VT.

If Whit couldn’t get a deal a decade ago when the VT brand was fresh off 20 years of being ranked top 10/15 annually, 7 conference titles, a natty appearance, double digit wins we’ll over half the time, there’s two conclusions to be drawn. 1) Whit will never get a good apparel deal for VT. 2) If there is a potential AD, other than Whit, in the future that has the wherewithal to land a financially beneficial apparel deal for VT, we are going to have to get better in football again…for an extended period of time. So, don’t hold your breath. Whit’s presentation lays out quite a few avenues for increased financial gain for VT athletics. Better to focus on those than some apparel deal that isn’t happening.

Is it before the ESPN/NCAA contract for the women’s tournaments runs out in 2031? This contract pays a mouth watering $65M per year and was inexplicably agreed to in 2024, right at the peak of NCAA women’s hoops popularity? Of course, this is 6% of the annual $1.1B paid out for the men’s tournament. (6 PERCENT!) If the investment pays off before 2031, please give me your details for profitability when women’s hoops is running several million in the red annually and can expect far less than a million a year from the NCAA tournament media contract? If profitability is after 2031, give me the breakeven point and sell me on the long term investment. Because I’m not seeing it in the next decade, even if I’m massively optimistic. I honestly don’t see it in under two decades. I’d also like to point out that I’m a big fan of women’s hoops, I don’t like arguing about this. I’d love to be the tops in the ACC annually, but since Kitley and Amoore left (and before they got here), I just don’t see it…. We had double 🦄 . I was infavor of doing what it took to keep Brooks and Strack here, it that didn’t happen. I like Duffy, and hope the best for her, I want to support what she does. But running $4 million in The red annually, without any foreseeable hope of climbing out….I just can’t get behind that. Especially seeing what’s happening to football and men’s hoops. (And what’s possible if they can improve)

And have an 8th place team. It’s not loser talk. I’d far rather lead the ACC in football or men’s hoops spending because those would be more likely to drive increased revenue that could then be shared with women’s hoops. Being near last among public schools in the two major revenue producing sports with a fanbase like VT has is beyond idiotic.

Throw Duke, ND and Stanford in there as well, I and I can't see a path for VT to get solidly into the top half of the ACC. That public school leading $7M+ may not be a great use of resources. Especially considering how wide open the men's hoops side is and the resulting revenue that can be generated in that space.

The PD tournament games between Martinsville and Laurel Park were legendary to attend.

You can’t out-UNC UNC. Or Kentucky, or Kansas or loads of $EC schools now. Losing Bennett is going to be rough for UVA. He was perfect for that place, until NIL and the portal ruined it.

Our AD has referenced Iowa State’s Cy Town fan experience project as a possibility for VT in the future. Just wondering what your thoughts were on that? It seems very intriguing.

For some reason, I can’t see Notre Dame in a midwestern division in the B1G. But they seem to fit with the West Coast schools. I also see FSU/Miami/UVA joining Penn State/MD/Rutgers and then Kansas getting added

Example: Many have discussed how there’s no easy way to quantify ACC Network ratings. In this situation, the league can create their own quantitative analysis for ACC Network ratings in order to arrive at the exact money distribution they desire. In a very rudimentary example, think of it like this equation. (Clemson’s major network ratings + X) ^y = Clemson’s payout. X is the ACC network rating for Clemson. Which the ACC doesn’t care about. It only cares what it’s paying Clemson. y is the quantitative multiplier that the ACC can use to turn ratings into dollars (it won’t be this simple, but this is a simple explananation) So let’s say that equation now looks like this: (Clemson’s major network ratings + X) ^y = $60M Oh….now the ACC knows it wants to get to $60M for Clemson. And it can use its major TV ratings as a way to quantify that without the need for ACC Network ratings. Because it can set y at whatever it needs to get to $60M. And here’s the great thing about numbers and finances. The quantitative variable y will be different for all 17.33 ACC schools! Because they are all different, some are big in hoops bringing in more NCAA units, reside in major TV markets that create higher carriage fees for the ACCN, have fans that travel to bowl games bringing in added bowl revenue for the league, and on and on and on. So basically, the ACC already knows what it needs to pay Clemson, UNC, Miami and FSU to keep them happy. It knows it can take money away from BC, Syracuse, Wake, Duke, SMU, Stanford, Cal and Pitt in order to do this. Because those schools have to know that taking a few million less a year in the ACC as it currently exists is better than any other option they have. And the ACC knows it can keep payouts very similar for UVA, VT, NC State, GT and Louisville and they will be happy because they have more options than the smaller private schools but they aren’t locks to move to the P2. And the ACC can do all of that by setting X and y however it chooses for all of them. So if Clemson and FSU get $15M more per year and Miami and UNC get $5M more per year, and you take $5M per year away from 8 small and/or private schools in the ACC, bada bing! ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/4/2025, 10:27:09 AM

Clemson’s TV ratings are going to destroy everybody in the league. Even FSU will probably lag behind a good bit. When Clemson is making around $60M a year with a cakewalk to the playoff, that $100M+ exit fee isn’t going to look as good as it may have when they were making $40M a year in the ACC…

We are what we are. We struck gold with Frank Beamer. A guy who could do it all without a lot of support because of who he was. He's one of the winningest coaches of all time, in the Hall of Fame, precisely because of how special he is. Whit Babcock hasn't done anything negative, he's done everything that VT could expect him to do. In the two primary non-football sports, he has hired Buzz Williams, Mike Young, Kenny Brooks and Megan Duffy. The jury may be out on Duffy so far, but the rest all took VT men's and women's hoops to successes we wouldn't previously dream about. Sweet 16? ACC title thrashing UNC and Duke in the semis and final? 5 NCAA tournaments over a 6 year period in men's hoops? (Are you kidding me??) A #1 seed and Final Four in the women's tournament? Check. Check. Check. And Duffy looks like a good one so far. Ahhh, then there's football. Whit hired Justin Fuente. People seem to forget that Fuente was THE homerun hire outside of Tom Herman that coaching cycle. And Fuente could coach, he really could. He took Beamer's players and immediately had VT in the ACC Title game. 19 wins in 2 years. He just wasn't Beamer. He was an introvert, he wasn't affable, and he didn't realize that the success Beamer had at VT was because of Beamer, not because of VT. And he couldn't go and get the players he needed to keep VT's level of play high. So when Fuente failed to be Beamer, what did Whit do? He went looking for another Beamer. Makes sense, except for the fact that lightning very rarely strikes twice in the same place. Brent Pry is an attempt to hire the same type of coach who took VT to the mountaintop, nothing less. Unlike Fuente, Pry still has a shot, because he still has the personality of Beamer that is evidently necessary to succeeding at VT. And Sands.....good grief, what do Hokie fans expect from him? He's done magnificent work leading VT forward as an academic institution. Enrollment way up, VT in the Top 50 overall universities for the first time ever, VTC Medical School, Innovation Campus close to DC, partnership with Amazon, what the heck more do you expect from him? I get the feeling that VT football fans think Sands sits in his office all day doing nothing but fielding calls from influential VT alums, imploring him to make easy fixes to VT's athletic department that will help the football program: "Just raise more money Tim, it's so easy!" "Just simply fire John Ballein, Tim! The wins will come, when the Ballein dynasty falls!" "Tim, all you need to do is spend an additional $30M every year, it doesn't matter that you don't have it! Everybody is doing it! Look at Maryland! Why can't we be just like Maryland?" "Tim, the easy fix is to make the P2 invite Virginia Tech! Why haven't you made them invite VT yet, Tim?" No, Sands just laughs, Purdue and Cal banners flowing behind him, while he snacks on cake and sips wine, never touching his pinky finger to the goblet. He thinks maybe now he will try to lobby the BOV to change VT's burnt orange color to gold, in honor of Cal and Purdue. Maroon and Gold! Yes, that will be his legacy at VT. You gotta let go of that crap, he's doing a great job leading the university, and he's probably just doing EXACLTY what the BOV wants him to do regarding leading the football program, because he doesn't have time to do anything else, because he's.....doing his job! He's letting Whit make solid - but not elite - hires and keeping VT in the black financially. *GASP!* Look, since Beamer left, VT Athletics has become EXACTLY what it was prior to Beamer. Solid fanbase with a mediocre football team and some exciting basketball teams from time to time. But all in all...not much to see here. If we were a sleeping giant because of our fanbase prior to Beamer waking us up, well, we're snoozing away again, just waiting on success to find us. But at least the University is in good hands. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/3/2025, 10:12:16 AM

Seemed like early August was always the timeframe for that. Just wondering, since 2026 is the start of the CFP mega-contract. Also, since it has been really, really quiet on the realignment front. It was quiet before Texas/OU to the SEC and before USC/UCLA to the B1G.

There is no way you can argue the Big XII (post-Texas/OU) is worth a contract extension with increased revenue for the league. But they got it. This is worth well more than that.

Agreed to honor the contract through 2036 (if no more than 4 schools left, or something of that nature.). Don’t forget, the ACC was party to lowering the exit fees annually to an extent where leaving in 2030 “only” cost $75M. But that was compared to something like $200-$300M for leaving 6 years early under the strict GOR. Why would the ACC (of which everybody other than Clemson and FSU was being sued by those two) agree to that when they really didn’t have to? So yeah, I think the remaining ACC schools are going to receive full payouts through 2036. Who knows after that? ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/1/2025, 2:43:30 PM

I made two assumptions: 1) ND gets a third of a share of exit fees 2) Exit penalties can be paid in annual installments through 2036, with interest. (I’d say 5% would be fair) Given that, the remaining 13.33 ACC teams would receive a grand total of $4-$5M per year through 2036. That’s good money if ESPN keeps the ACC's media contract in place through 2036 after losing its three biggest football brands and 2nd best basketball brand. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/1/2025, 6:52:08 AM

In fact, very few conference expansion schools have been tag alongs. Assuming tag along means that the influence of one school causes another school to gain conference affiliation when they otherwise would not have. Assuming that, you seem to be confusing the method of conference expansion usually including two schools at a time with the thought that one of the expansion schools is a ‘tag along’. Texas A&M did not have a tag along. Missouri was not a tag along. (1 had neither to do with the other outside the necessity for the SEC to add two schools) Nebraska did not. Rutgers and Maryland were not tag alongs. They were added because of their markets, irrespective of each other’s political capital. Texas and Oklahoma were not tag alongs. They were the two biggest football brands in the Big 12, which had the soonest media contract expiration date. Oregon and Washington were not tag alongs. Arizona and Arizona State weren’t. Utah wasn’t. Colorado wasn’t. SMU wasnt a tag along. It’s probably easier to list the actual tag alongs. Virginia Tech was a tag along. And VT wasn’t even a tag along with a conference expansion target. Stanford and Cal were tag alongs purely for Notre Dame, which has an immense gravitational pull in the ACC. UCLA was a tag along. And the only reason UCLA was a tag along was because they’re in the largest TV market in the country. Oh and they’re one of the bluest of blue blood hoops programs of all time. And that’s about it. The SEC isn’t adding two North Carolina schools when neither have ever sniffed college football relevance at the highest level. They’ll add North Carolina because of their brand recognition in a massively important state to the SEC. And laugh in North Carolina’s face at the request to add NC State as a tag along. They’ll add Clemson as the premier football brand in the ACC that can generate 4-5M viewers on their own. Those are the two adds the SEC needs to make next. That’s it. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/31/2025, 11:02:35 AM

The state government is consumed with being the top state for business in the USA (Which we are) with a secondary goal of trying to eliminate state taxes. Any squabbling amongst NC State grads within the government over conference alignment pales in comparison with how much business the Research Triangle is able to do. And that business megalopolis is what will ensure NC State remains as solid a university as it wants to be. And it isn’t like NC State is going to be left in the wilderness. They will be in an ACC or Big XII that allows them to be just as competitive as they currently are in sports. (This will also be the fate of VT). The Wolfpack and Hokies will continue to pull in $50M or so per year from a media deal in either the ACC or B12. They aren’t going to be in a Cal situation or Oregon State or Washington State situation. If that were the case, sure the state government may draw a line. But it’s not. The ACC won’t go the way of the Pac 12, primarily because of Notre Dame and Duke. NC State, however will have its choice of the Big 12 or ACC to remain as competitive as it wants in college football.

I would buy that UNC’s brass would have the hubris to believe they could get NC State into the SEC after UNC goes to the SEC first. But there no world where NC State joins the SEC while Clemson doesn’t.

Much less that VT was able to add Hansberry or Pasha, not to mention Avdalas…. Bracketology is a non-starter right now. It’s probably very similar to whatever he put out directly after the NCAA Tournament.

Which, if they expand the field to 72, it’s 6 more units, and those 6 units will be gobbled up by the power conferences. (Big East is about the be a Power Conference in the House $ NCAA Tournament). So while the units will shift even more towards power leagues, the sharing per unit won’t be unequal.

FSU and Miami football are next. Those would be the 4 to take to try to get the ACC to crumble.

This is pure greed by ESPN, Fox, the SEC and Big Ten. Nothing more. If getting UNC helps them get more money, (by creating the collapse of a power league that is currently slated to garner 15% of CFP revenue or whatever cut the ACC got) they’ll do it. UNC doesn’t have a say in the matter. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/29/2025, 6:47:25 AM