Lunardi has removed ALL ACC teams from his bubble watch
UVA & Wake were on this page either first 4 out or next 4 & didn’t lose; Hokies nowhere to be found. Boise has lost 2 in a row & moved out to in, lost vs VT & is ranked 5 slots lower
ESPN isn’t even hiding their anti-ACC bias
56 Replies
Early season games should be weighed differently in basketball
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
Sorry folks, the ACC just isn't that deep this year.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
Well ACC is 8-3 vs that “9 bid league”
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
2y
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
The Big 12 is the best league top to bottom
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
To be just as good as SEC & close if not better than (via head to head results) B12
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
2y
This league is VERY deep and very tough to win in
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
C
cjpayne8
2y
I think it has everything to do with us being a 13-8 team with losses to a bad UVA team, a beatable Miami team, and FSU. If we beat those three on our second try, then that might change the narrative to an extent. What have been Tech’s biggest issues throughout the season? Turnovers and failing to shoot the ball consistently. When one doesn’t kill us, the other does. I’m not one who thinks we’re just cursed to be a G5 level team under CMY (we’re like 4 made 3’s away from beating Duke last night, rinse and repeat for UVA and Miami, etc), but based on our resume as of right now, I don’t think we deserve to be a tourney team this year.
HOWEVER, that can (and hopefully will) change if we can redeem our losses to Miami, UVA, FSU, and manage to win the remaining games that we should win, with a solid outing in the ACC tournament. We’re not far off, just have to keep taking steps in the right direction.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
But yet fell “out of consideration”
Based on the pictured graphic.
I’m not saying we’re tourney team. I’m asking why Boise is listed as in, they’re 12-6, ranked 55 in NET, we’re 50, we beat them and we’re not within EIGHT slots of them??
And UVA is NOT bad. They play an ugly style and nobody’s beaten them in Cville in 20 tries
(In response to this post by cjpayne8)
C
cjpayne8
2y
There’s a lot about the NET that I’m still trying to figure out lol, a lot of it doesn’t add up.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
P&J cockroach is alive and well.
He really gets his kicks showering the board with negative posts about VT basketball and its players and the ACC.
We need a roach motel for this insect. 🤓
** Edited by VPI63 at 1/30/2024, 5:27:37 PM
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
more than a paid Village Idiot for SECspn and their agenda.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
H
HokieRat
2y
** Edited by HokieRat at 1/30/2024, 3:07:33 PM
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
Once?"
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
The new leadership is much more corporate and what have you done for me lately and that is only 2 years. In their circle now is ONLY SEC and name programs based on their perception and their is no gradation between the ACC or the Big 12 and Group of Five. They are the "REST":
Just wait next year in college football and we will find only a rare few of ACC games on ABC or ESPN networks. (except FSU and clemson) and any team who plays Notre Dame
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
1 vs a at the time sub 110 UNLV team who’s under .500 but somehow miraculously in the top 100
** Edited by hokiepro at 1/30/2024, 6:35:18 PM
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
Joe Lunardi, CBS, ESPN, and the metrics providers are all involved in some Illumanti-type conspiracy to get Boise State into the tourney and to keep VT out?
Maybe go touch some grass.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
N
nkhooch
2y
the ACC? Nonsense.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
May as well anyway
(In response to this post by nkhooch)
2y
Why would anybody want to break up the ACC? The networks are currently getting the ACC assets at rock bottom prices. If they moved to a new conference it would cost them more. Please explain your logic in financial terms.
(In response to this post by hokiepro)
2y
Probably 10 or more won't get into a higher payout conference.
Let's say 6 become more expensive and 11 that don't draw eyeballs go away essentially or become less expensive, the ones that go b12. Reconstituted acc, b12 or something lower. It's better for ESPN to pick apart the conference than to pay all those schools the money they will want/need to compete.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and consolidation. Financially, it is about siphoning off dead weight and splitting the revenue pie among fewer mouths. It is not palatable, YET, to kick out freeloaders like Vandy, Rutgers, MD, etc. from performing conferences. It is easier to break up under or non performing conferences for desirable pieces(geography, brand, etc.) discard the scrap and keep the money. The PAC 12 or the ACC as conferences do not match the revenue of the B1G or the SEC. However, if you can discard/offload schools splitting the money between remaining schools makes the numbers better. There will come a time when there are no more value programs in the smaller conferences. Once that time comes, they will eat their own who do not measure up in ability and willingness to compete.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
They currently own VA and NC with the ACC. If those schools moved to the SEC, ESPN would pay more money for the same audience. If the BIG moved into those states, that would be incremental revenue. So, I see how the destruction of the ACC might benefit Fox, but not ESPN.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
ESPN benefits much more from the control and power standpoint of keeping the B1G out if the ACC is breaking up. Also this is a hypothetical but, if ESPN is paying $40MM per team for 14 and you halve that number to 7 they are at $80MM per team and have not paid a dime more, just reduced the number feeding at the trough. It will not be that one for one swap and the other factors are potential fees and the impact on ESPN from the network but, you get the idea. The networks know the bottom line, will protect it but, have no reservations at all about changing who gets fed. The Big 12 didn't get that $31 million on their merits they were subsidized by FOX and ESPN with PAC 12 monies and LHN savings.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
Why would the ACC run the risk? Why not just keep the status quo?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
ESPN will evaluate its options in terms of control, cash and future power. If the break up is inevitable they will manage for control and power. The ACC will not risk it but, just like ESPN, if the situation is untenable they will manage for the best alternative outcome for the conference and its members. They may, due to forces beyond their control, have a limited or no say in maintaining the status quo.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
purposes, to boot out BC, Cuse, WF, Duke to give the remaining schools a bigger slice of the revenue, or is the ACC headed the way of the PAC12? ( I still have my doubts about the 3 "new" ACC members actually remaining a part of the league, so I did not include them).
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the ACC will ever boot out members, even moreso original founding conference members. They have already recognized the fatal flaws of the conference and, it is my opinion, the GOR was just the instrument designed to prolong life and hopefully provide an orderly winding down of conference affairs and assist the members with as smoother landings as possible in new homes, FSU's impatience notwithstanding.
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
2y
that suggests organizations do not exist to pursue anything other than their own survival. In other words, the ACC is not in the business of producing the best student-athletes or creating the most effective/winning athletic programs. It's simply in the business of remaining the ACC.
Add to that the corruption of Swafford and you get the ****e show that is the ACC. It will drift into irrelevance in the next 5 years. It's like watching Blockbuster.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
may even play well in the classroom, but, in the real world organizations who only pursue their own survival rarely last much less thrive for 70+ years. There are valid criticisms of Swofford and the ACC unfortunately you seem to have an ax to grind that borders on irrationality rather than reality.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
explaining (checks notes)...survival. But it also leads to things like mimicry rather than vision. The ACC seems like a perfect example of that. They were always reacting to what others were doing rather than being proactive. In part, because the leaders were dolts. In part, because they never had the leverage to become a super conference.
They tried to be relevant when they added Miami and VT but that didn't really produce the splash. Couldn't land Notre Dame for football but allowing them in for all other sports was telling of how weak the conference really is. Meanwhile, the SEC added Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma -- that big time additions.
I honestly don't have an axe to grind. It just get tiring listening to people pretend we're in a premier conference. We're not. It's a good basketball conference. It's a dog water football conference. If it wasn't for that little run by Clemson for a few years, the ACC would be completely irrelevant in that sport too.
I'm not sure what is irrational about such a view. I just think it makes me less homer-ish than most VT fans.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
to prove how much smarter you are than those dolts and with the added benefit of hindsight. What would you have done that would constitute vision rather than mimicry? What would you have tried rather than adding Miami and VT or for that matter ND? What would you have done to realistically attract A&M, UT, OU or any other candidates to the ACC? What would you have done to improve the ACC's media leverage?
You say you get tired of listening to people pretend we're in a premier conference but, our discussion has not once gone in that direction. You defend your view as not irrational, just one that makes you less homerish but, it comes off as more an ax to grind than a willingness to acknowledge the realities on both sides of the coin. The fact is just like you push back on people you believe are homers with an unrealistic conference perspective, you invite the same push back on your side with the negative views and overly negative opinions of the conference.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
and my negative assessment of it is so irrational, tell me the path for the conference NOT being utterly irrelevant in 10 years?
Cal and SMU the answer?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
they wouldn't be irrelevant in the future and you can read a number of my past posts on the real motive of the GOR and the likely future of the ACC. My bullishness on the ACC was never about their future but, it was to refute your delusional assessment of what was accomplished from inception to recent times and calling it a CRAP conference.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
I shouldn’t bash ACC leadership. The conference is doomed no matter what they do or would’ve done .
Swofford showed nothing but vision, courage, and integrity.
** Edited by Pride_and_Joy at 1/30/2024, 9:28:29 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
to actually defend your position and show what you may or may not know, you once again call on your standard retreat of a snarky reply taking the other side. Spare us your standard follow on post claiming you are a victim and cannot win.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
1. The ACC sucks
2. Swofford was corrupt
3. It wouldn’t have mattered if Swofford was the greatest leader ever because the ACC sucks (I’m sincerely retracting the dolt part)
4. It isn’t irrational to recognize that our conference sucks
5. You seem to take it very personally when someone points out that the ACC sucks.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
than your victim spiel although calling you out beforehand likely just preempted what you would have done. If calling you out on your inconsistencies, irrationality and less than realistic assessment of historical facts is taking it personally, then guilty as charged.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 1/30/2024, 9:50:50 PM
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
for truth, justice, and the American Way.
I’m not being inconsistent or irrational.
I just disagree with you. Maybe you’re Swofford’s nephew or something. Because apparently not agreeing with you gets you really worked up.
Think about what you’re arguing about. You admit the conference isn’t a premiere one and that it may very well not be relevant in the future.
So what are you arguing that it’s utterly mediocre rather than crap?
You’re expending lot of energy just for that.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and can each think of the other what we wish. Others can read our exchanges and make their own individual conclusions on our consistency especially and rationalizing in defending the positions.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
that has more national titles in the last ten years than the B1G has this century is mediocre or crap, however, if the question was about you I will take the 5th.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
with all the assertions you made about what they did was wrong and your full on retreat to provide your solutions to those issues or even a remotely intelligent defense as to why they were wrong and what the available realistic alternatives were.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
My tinfoil hat is a snap back with a flex fit. Very comfortable
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)