So was this extension a good thing for VT
The biggest positive is this provides VT a stable place until 2036. To me that is huge because if I make it to 2036 I will be 86 and probably will care about being able to get out of bed in the morning than sports.
The biggest negative is our real return might not grow equal of greater than the Big 12 who is our only competitor for stability. But we will still have 4-5 brand name schools that playing them will increase our take. In fact only ND and the 4 teams in the ACC are brand names that are not in the P2.
The 2nd biggest positive is that the ACC can prepare for all the upheaval that is going to come with all the league contract negotiations/realigments in 2031.
The 2nd biggest negative is the lawsuits. With this extension the window has opened for the conference to be at least a bit pro active. But as long as the lawsuit has the ACC locked up, most of the possible pro actions are on hold.
113 Replies
1y
It’s simple. VT needs to win. Win at football is most important. Win at men’s basketball is second. Win at women’s basketball is third.
It’s an ugly truth (and I love seeing the success of the Hokie wrestling and soccer and other teams). The big two are critical to the future revenue and success of VT athletics.
This change by the ACC can help VT get more money and take more chances if we are able to take advantage of the opportunity. But we have to win. And we need better scheduling. Not 10 years of ODU. Not Liberty. Not Wofford. Not even a spurtle can help those crappy games.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
HouClone
1y
If rumors are true, playing ND going to be limited going forward. SEC/Big 10 wants automatic bids so the brands can play each other only.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
D
daveinop
1y
does anyone really know what's in it?
departure fees are apparently being clarified for 2031 so that seems to be the next shuffle date
** Edited by daveinop at 1/31/2025, 3:53:37 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
HouClone
1y
Sincerely,
University of Texas
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
for a conference. Whether it happens quickly or takes some amount of time, the conference is going to suffer a calamity. There have been no exceptions. It happened to the SWC. It happened to the Big East. It happened to the Big 12. It happened to the PAC-12. It's going to happen to the ACC.
And, you're absolutely right; Texas was at the center of two of those conference calamities. I can only hope and pray they cause another one in their current home.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
unequal revenue sharing, without exception, has caused major calamities for the conferences that have tried it.
Also, Vanderbilt sure is making that Bama/Georgia money right now, and will be for at least the next 6 years. I also imagine they will be favorites to come into Lane next year and eat VT's lunch.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2 positives. IMO.
1. CFP. I don't think ESPN will allow the ACC to be completely marginalized. They want to make money off the ACC, and they can't do that if it becomes a quasi G5.
2. Time to right the ship in football. I give Pry one more year. He better show massive improvement. I liked the hire, but not sure why we gave someone with no HC experience a six year deal, but whatever. But had ESPN pulled the plug this year, it would be curtains for us right NOW.
There are negatives too. But I will save that for another time.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
Then, getting the most out of the ACC would be the best option for VT.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
You look at the Power 2 schools, they have 'truly professional' management of the athletic dept, professional fund raisers, and corporate sponsorship and rights management experts. In Merriman
its all just closed family members, or friends, local's who have no experience in professional sports and marketing in big markets. Remember, its about Home.
Whit is as well very nieve in this sector, while the fan base is so damn passionate... he's very risk adversed. Alot of missed opportunities by VT athletic Dept.
** Edited by 1947Sunbowl at 1/31/2025, 4:34:54 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Beyond the strong athletic programs that are desirable from all metrics, I think the P2 would be willing to consider fleecing a reasonable number of members who would pay to play. If this is any kind of possibility, then there will likely be some very expensive/serious strings attached (a la SMU and the ACC). And I think there is some current discussion within Tech administration about planning to pursue this path if/when it is available.
100% speculation on my part, mind you.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Sometimes it pays to look past the end of your nose.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
O
obguthr
1y
If P2 were to expand to 48 and form a new class, we should have a spot. As long as there are 3 tiers in FBS, we will remain 2nd tier.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
As far as conference affiliation we are currently in the best situation that we will ever be. We can’t even compete now in an ACC that is the worst in the P4.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
a few more years and therefore ESPN keeps paying the bottom feeders and under performing programs more money than we would make in a diminished ACC with the top programs leaving. However VT will most likely make less money than this past year. FSU Clemson Miami and UNC will be among the programs making the better money in the ACC as long as it holds together from what is being reported.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
This is a disaster for VT. There are no "positives" to be had.
ESPN is not paying the ACC any more money.
FSU, Clemson, and Miami have now been given "most favored nation" status, setting them apart from the rest of the league, and 2/3 of that group will get to play Notre Dame every year, at the expense of every other conference member, including VT. That means VT loses a marquee national TV game so Miami can get on TV more.
Because the FSU/Clemson lawsuits are reportedly going to settle, VT will actually now get LESS money, because, per the settlement, media revenue is going to be distributed by TV viewership. VT plays the majority of its games on the ACCN. You do the math.
At the end of the road, FSU and Clemson are clearly still leaving when the GOR expires, and the ACC is just going to implode anyway, so all this big extension, in conjunction with the lawsuits settling, is going to do is ensure VT gets even less money and TV exposure than they're currently getting.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 1/31/2025, 11:31:12 AM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
Virginia tech could easily be Oregon State and Washington State.
That's not a good place to be. Cold and lonely.
Keep the acc around for 10 years, remain relevant, and see what happens.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
V
Vippie1
1y
data accounting for network, time, opponent etc.
Wake in a prime time ABC game is going to beat FSU on a ACCN sooner. Duh.
Our leadership may not be the sharpest tools in the shed but they aren't that stupid.
Revenue based on Viewership will be a modest net win for VT. Not the possible home run it might be for FSU but certainly not the disaster you project.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
...be artificially up due to ND's audience, while everyone else is getting screwed. Those three will get more money, while everyone else will get less.
Not sure how Miami got into the "privileged three." They are the most overrated program in the ACC.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
1y
the "brand initiative" and the new ND scheduling policy are going to take money directly out of VT's pocket, and put it in the pockets of FSU, Clemson, Miami, and probably UNC. I don't really care if they hurt Wake Forest more, because I couldn't care less about Wake Forest and what happens to them.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
V
Vippie1
1y
I disagree
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
or ESPN2 in the past five years. Then come back here, and we can have an informed discussion about this. Thanks!
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
V
Vippie1
1y
You really can't envision a worse outcome for VT than this. I sure can.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
But after that happens, what then? There really is no other option for VT right now. And in the end IMHO the ACC, B12 AND PAC will be on pretty equal footing at a level between the P2 and G5.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Just like there's no other real options for FSU or anyone else right now, today. But, nobody here is talking about right now, today. We're talking about the future. And, you're 100% absolutely dead wrong about the ACC vs. the Big 12, and here's why-
When, like you're talking about here, the "dust settles," and the football brands have left the ACC (God willing, VT included,) the ACC will absolutely NOT be on pretty equal footing with the Big 12. When that happens, the ACC is going to panic back fill the exiting membership with ECU, App State, Tulane, Memphis, Buffalo, JMU, USF, Rice, etc., etc., etc., and the way you know this is exactly what will happen is because it's exactly what happened with the Big East when the ACC raided it, and it's exactly what happened with the PAC 12's transition to the PAC 2 back into whatever we're calling the PAC 12 now. History repeats itself.
If VT remains in a post-implosion ACC, VT will stranded in a bastardized G5 version of the ACC with the absolute dreck of the current membership plus a bunch of other no-brand, no-market programs. Everything that's currently wrong with the ACC and hindering VT's ability to compete will be magnified a hundred fold. Go ask a Kent State fan how wonderful it is, and you would get a pretty good idea of what VT's situation would look like.
Based upon this ESPN extension, and the plan to settle the FSU/Clemson lawsuits, VT somehow has even LESS of a viable future as a member of the ACC than they did last week. And, it's pretty clear at this point the Big 10 and the SEC are never going to let VT into their little monopoly. VT should be working the back channels to the Big 12 right now, today, and getting things all worked out, because, unless you're sitting at Wake Forest or SMU, the ACC is even more dead man walking now than it was.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 1/31/2025, 3:20:50 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
opportunity to return to its basketball-first roots a la the Big East did a decade ago. If the basketball schools want to add new members, then they will likely raid the Big East or Atlantic 10. I could even see the ACC decide to not sponsor football because it doesn't have enough members to qualify as a football conference. While the football brands, who don't join an existing conference, may end up forming a new conference a la the AAC.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Funny you mention the basketball-first roots - people here forget that for the majority of its history, basketball was IT in the ACC. The original Big East Conference was created primarily to be a direct competitor with ACC basketball. If you go back to the 1960s or 1970s, nobody thought anything at all about ACC football; in fact, the perception of ACC football then was probably worse than it is now. Those basketball roots, much like what happened with the Big East when it tried to splinter off and have the Big East Football Conference with some schools half in and out, are what's creating all the problems for the ACC now - most of the schools in the ACC are basketball schools that either cannot or will not be nationally competitive in football, and the current landscape is one where football drives 99% of the value.
There would be no shame for the ACC in going back to being a basketball conference with other sports. That's just not going to work for VT or any other school that is primarily invested in football.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
Hopefully VT will have better experience with Metro Conference 2.0.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Can't believe that didn't work out.
If P2 is out, I'm not sure why VT would leave to start its own thing instead of joining the Big 12, which is full of similarly situated football programs with very little, if any chaff.
Even if we assume that FSU and Clemson can't get into the P2, which is a major assumption...if we're getting rid of the ACC programs that drag football down, there's really not much left in the current iteration of the ACC... it's pretty much VT, FSU, Clemson, Miami, GT, Louisville, UNC, NCSU. I'm skeptical any Big 12 team is leaving to join that group, and I'm just not sure an 8 team conference is viable anymore. You'd have to schedule 5 OOC games every season, which just isn't realistic. I guess you could add UVA and Pitt to that group, but both of those schools bring very little if anything to the table from a football perspective. UVA should just go ahead and change their acronym to DOA when it comes to football, and Pitt plays in a northeastern NFL town in an NFL stadium where, even if they're good, nobody at all cares about the college team.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 1/31/2025, 4:42:52 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
include the following:
1. A better financial deal with ESPN, CBS, or NBC than FOX.
2. The "benefits" of playing schools from that part of the country doesn't outweigh the "costs" that would be associated with that conference. Cost in this case may not only refer to direct cost (i.e. travel), but the perceived "value" of the states the schools are located in.
3. The schools would rather be members of a smaller and maybe even more geographically friendly conference. It is possible a large conferences below the P2 level are not able to support the weight (or politics) that come with having 20+ members. Only time will tell if the Big XII suffers a similar fate as the WAC in the late 1990s (which lead to the creation of the MWC) or not.
4. The schools only want to be members with some of the Big XII members, but not all of them. If that is the case, then those members may be willing to leave the Big XII for a conference with those ACC schools because it means each school gets a larger slice of the the money pie.
Remember the schools are currently involved with meetings to determine the re-org plan for the NCAA. Given the representatives are from all three division levels and I think the private sector, those decisions could have an impact on the future of athletic conferences and what size(s) is/are still financially viable. History says that these large super conferences may not be viable for the long-term. It may even be less viable if the bubble ever pops or the networks ever decide to re-allocate more financial resources from the non-P2 conference pool to the P2 conference pool.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
that these schools are going to be dealing with a crisis situation in 2031 or 2036 where they have to make a very quick decision whether stay in a G5-caliber ACC with a bunch of backfilled mid major programs, join another conference, or start their own thing. Out of those three options, starting their own thing would definitely be the most difficult to navigate.
Also, I just cannot buy that any Big 12 schools are going to leave a position of relative stability to join an ACC on life support. You also have to remember that the Big 12 renegotiates its media rights deal in 2031, while the ACC is stuck until 2036 with what is universally recognized as a terrible deal now, much less in 10 years. The Big 12's new deal will almost certainly eclipse what the ACC will be making then.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
Hence why I used Metro Conference as a placeholder example because a new conference (if a group of ACC schools opt to go that route) would give everyone a clean slate. It would allow the former ACC schools to lose the stigma associated with the ACC brand particularly a lack of one when it comes to football because the new conference would allow people's attention to focus on the brand value of the individual programs.
Plus, I do think there could be a window in 2031 for ACC to negotiate their way out of the GOR. If enough schools are leaving the ACC, then it could even be enough to kill it early. Whichever group ends up keeping the ACC name may see it as opportunity to give themselves a reset very similar to what the Big East schools wanted when they kicked the AAC schools out of the conference. I do think both groups may be starting to realize or already realize that riding the GOR out to full term is likely not the best option for the long-term health of all the athletic programs involved with the deal. I do think people are having informal and formal discussions behind closed doors to see what options are out there for an earlier exit ramp to the GOR. They are probably taking their time to properly assess the situation before they are willing to make any final decisions. As time gets closer to 2031, I do think it is possible those conversations could increase particularly as the dust settles in other places within the collage athletic dust storm that is swirling right now.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
is to try to keep FSU (and others), or extract money from them.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
those big names leave. Do you really see any advantage that TCU, Houston. Baylor, ASU, AZ, Colorado (minus prime), Utah, BYU, ISU, KS, KSU or Okie State have over Cuse, BC, Pitt, UVA, Duke, Wake, SMU, Stanford, Cal, Lville and GT?
Where is the advantage other than a total merger and that still does not remove VT from our ACC brothers.
IMHO both leagues will be viewed as the same and get the same crumbs from big media. Some years one will do better and other years it will be the other.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
in flyover. It's because I lived in Boston and Charlotte.
Explaining the football experience in the hateful 8 to the Mid Atlantic, is like me trying to explain SEC football to those in the North East. It's just a different mindset, and in some of these States, the college football and basketball is all they have. VERY dedicated and rabid fan bases that fill the stadium no matter who they are playing. Like the SEC.
We like our beer and BBQ, and you will find no wine and cheese at these amazing tailgates. Honestly, I don't think some of you get it.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
Leaving aside the actually pretty funny joke that SMU, Stanford, and Cal are now "our ACC brothers," and the fact that each and every one of those programs besides maybe Louisville are completely worthless as football brands....every single one of those schools would sell out VT tomorrow for an extra bologna sandwich. They can all rot, for all I care. Screw 'em.
You're just going to have to accept it at some point...the ACC sucks now, man. It had its hayday, long before they let VT in, but, ultimately, it's a failed experiment, and it's going to ultimately suffer the same fate the Big East suffered, because it didn't learn anything. There's a reason the Big 12 is now somewhat stable, and the ACC is a giant mess internally and a national running joke externally.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
the big boys because being one of those is an anointed position. As a league compared to the P2, yes the ACC sucks and there is no chance the ACC nor the B12 will be above the glass ceiling.
The reason the Big 12 was more stable was just taken down 1st and has had some time to heal.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
South Carolina, Kentucky, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, and Mississippi State are all "anointed ones." VT never had any business being mentioned with that group of juggernauts.
The more you post about this topic, the more clearly out of touch you sound.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
hokieZ71
1y
If VT hadn't allowed itself to be surpassed by Duke, Georgia Tech, Pitt and now even Syracuse in the quality of football team that takes the field, VT would have been on ESPN and ABC several more times and ACC Network less over the past few years.
Start of this year, you have Pat McAfee talking about VT being the #4 seed as ACC champion. I heard several ESPN guys talk about potentially GameDay coming back to Blacksburg for the Clemson game....and then we go out and look like dog crap against Vanderbilt.
We have been garbage and deserve to be shown on the ACC Network in between the Spurtle and Tac Shaver ads.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Do you somehow think we deserve better? No we don’t. That’s the hard truth. Why do you think Whit Babcock has been hiding from the general public and doesn’t give any interviews? He doesn’t want to have the difficult conversations that implicate his responsibility for mismanagement of the football program and his abysmal record of cultivating giving from our donor base. We are getting what we richly deserve.
** Edited by Poultrygeist at 1/31/2025, 2:14:51 PM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
deleted
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 1/31/2025, 1:43:15 PM
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
1y
really carpe diem in the early 2000s by capitalizing on the buzz generated from the MNC to promote growth.
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
S
saret
1y
communication. And, while he may not have started the fundraising when he should have, he didn't mismanage the money he had (he operated in the black). Yes, times have changed and more money is needed, but whatever hole JW left the AthDept in, Whit keeps making the hole deeper, and not delivering the results to climb out of the hole.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
... can imagine that could cause you to believe Whit has screwed the pooch, WRT VT athletics? VT could have hired Jimmy Joe or Lily Jane off the street for $100k a year and not be worse off than we are now. Would actually be better cause we would have saved a ton of salary we're currently wasting on Whit.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
rest on its laurels or stay hungry and look to continue evolving over time. In the early 2000s VT was one of ESPN's flavor of the month, maybe even the year, by giving VT all those prime time opportunities. That was a golden opportunity for VT to actively expand the size of the Hokie Club and even start having discussions about expanding the size of Lane to accommodate the growth.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
saret
1y
particularly fan of JW, but he was head and shoulders above Whit, despite his physical decline in the latter years.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
or was it the donors. To accomplish what you think they should have would most certainly have required a lot more consultants and staff to try and coax $$$ out of a donor base that was not all that large.
The expectation that every decent AD should have seen all this and have almost worked miracles is just over the top. And that seems to be the biggest complaint against WB. Applying that standard will create a hire, complain and fire, rinse repeat and recycle.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
I will grant the previous administration did not do what it needed to do when VT was at it's peak hotness. i.e. Strike while the iron was red hot.
That said, Whit's administration, upon taking over, did not strike while the iron, while not red hot, was still soft and malleable. So yeah, it's Whit's fault.
Donors can't be expected to just on their own fork over more and more money. As far as they know the old way is working fine. A case has to be made to them why more money needs to be raised, why different methods need to be made, due to the changing landscape of college football. They need a clear vision of how and where VT football is headed.
We needed a leader with vision and purpose. Instead we got a guy hiding in the quarter of his office.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
Is there any record of at least several ADs at several schools that was able to "strike when the iron was hot?" Not Whit did not oversee a dramatic rise in giving but how many do? If you can't point out at least several places that reached a peak and stayed there, then yours is a fantasy expectation. TCU had a peak just a couple of years ago but they sure have not met your expectation and they are located in big oil money area. Georgia Tech got there but soon fell right back down similar to VT. Same for Colorado. Now I will give you the whole prime thing now at Colorado may well create another peak but we won't be able to tell anything about that until Prime is gone.
The only program that has ever done what you blame Whit for not doing is FSU and their rise was years and years ago.
It is not a fault of Whit against a reasonable performance expectations that he has not been able to do what only FSU has done and that was years ago.
Do you really think that major donors fork over large sums of money and then don't know exactly what is going on vs the lay of the land? If so, I don't know how to respond.
Hiding in the quarter is your take and it seems more a frustration that your wishes, hopes and fantasies are not being met.
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
1y
are things the Athletic Department could have done that wouldn't require expanding the staff or hiring a lot of consultants.
1. Have better communication with the fan base.
2. Develop a business plan and share it with the fan base.
3. Tweak the Hokie Club format to be more align with Clemson's IPTAY system.
4. Develop a plan to encourage students to become Hokie Club members for multiple years before they graduate.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
and company off the hook for continuing the mismanagement and not cultivating donor giving necessary for VT to remain relevant.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
and going whole hog in to get those $$$$$?
I still say that is a take without a real basis to determine how much ability to actually get something like that through Burrus any AD would have.
Do you think any AD really could undertake the that without Burrus approval? And do you think the larger fund raising by the University would look favorably on athletics taking more?
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
1y
difficult to cultivate anything when the horse has long left the barn and the football program is not close to sniffing another legitimate national championship run. By the time Babcock was in charge VT athletics was probably looking the following reality:
A rock to the north, a hard place to the south, up a creek without a paddle to the west, and the 8-ball to the east.
Basically JW left VT athletics in a hole deeper than the height of Olympus Mons on Mars that even the most qualified AD couldn't get VT out of in time.
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
2
2hhoop3
1y
a pile of horse manure. VT did not capitalize in the early 2000s and JW was part of that but, not the sole part. He stayed on too long with his illness but, that is another story as well. The AD faced challenges when Babcock arrived but, he was left with a comfortable runway given the financial position, the operations and the personnel like Tom Gabbard that were in place.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
were taking place and to quickly grow the fan base. Growing the fan base takes a little time which was not on VT's side when Babcock arrived.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
your opinion but, whether the length of the runway was adequate likely says more about the pilot than the guy that built it. Moreover, Babcock's eventual successor is unlikely to enjoy a longer runway, if he/she enjoys any runway at all.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
in much better shape to pivot quickly. The one thing that Babcock could never recapture was the time lost. Also, VT would have been in much better shape to either accept an invitation to join a P2 conference or at least still have it as a realistic option.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
ifs and buts, you know the rest. Trying to blame Babcock's situation on what he inherited rather than what he has done or not done is a stretch to be charitable and an even bigger reach than your initial attempt to pin it on JW.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
Babcock could have done some things differently. I just don't think it would have made that much of a difference given how much time had past by that point.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
and to create excitement thus cultivating giving and growing our donor base? Clemson a peer institution of ours does this very well. They are a smaller school with a less living alumni that make less money on average and in a smaller less affluent state. Yet they raise over 3 times the donor revenue than we do. That is on the VT athletic administration. That is on Whit.
Do you think he is responsible for not knowing how far behind most of the power 5 we had fallen in football resources and facilities investment. Of course he is responsible. It’s his freaking job. Yet no one has held him accountable. Not Sands, not the board, not the high level donors and not the media. Where else can and AD of a major institution like VT get away with all of that and be allowed to hide from the public and not give interviews for 6-8 months at a time. Then stage a scripted interview with Bill Roth and go hide in his office again. Everyone that cares anything about Virginia Tech Athletics should be furious at the way the program has been mismanaged by Whit Babcock.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
Athletic Department, to come up with a business for the department. Once the business plan is developed and the AD determines what level of donation or fan base participation needs to be involved to be achieve the goals, then it is up to the AD to make sure that necessary information is properly communicated to the fan base. It is basic business 101 which VT historically seems to be lacking for whatever reason.
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
1y
... any coach VT has had or currently has.
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
R
RJHokie
1y
And it’s not getting any better.
And from what I’ve heard, he’s transferred oversight responsibility of the Hokie Club from Brad Wurthman to Danny White who also is not a professional fundraiser, and I’m not sure why. But, as you say, Whit basically hides from the public and accountability, if any, appears to be minimal.
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
2
2hhoop3
1y
different premise, although not by much, from your original statement "basically JW left VT in a hole.......". We will just disagree.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
positives and negatives.
Positive: Stability
Negative: Paycheck based on performance, playing Notre Dame less frequently, and it doesn't do anything to help improve the ACC's football image
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
B12, there is a sense of urgency with the schools, and their football programs. It's a conference filled with teams that no one else wanted, but top to bottom, it is filled with very solid athletic programs. It's a race to see which schools will dominate the top end, and there currently are no clear choices.
The ACC now has time to get that same sense of urgency. I know those that follow VT have had that for a while, but there are many others that need to step up, and plow money into their programs.
UNC is interesting, and their new coach could put them in a position of national attention. If success on the field matches their enthusiasm, they too could easily be put into that rotation with ND, and possibly with FSU, Miami, and Clemson as well. That flexibility in scheduling is enormous in my opinion, as most contracts between teams extend out many years. VT could be in that rotation as well, if that is in fact what the the ACC is thinking.
I would like to see the B12 also have that flexibility in scheduling. Strike the iron when it's hot, and have matchups of the top schools as much as they can from year to year.
The downside is that the existing contract was why FSU sued, and many on this board were very disappointed that the SEC and BIG got their contracts, and then heads exploded with the B12 contract. What I haven't heard from ESPN or the ACC, is that they are getting more money from this "extension". I really thought that ESPN would come back with more money, as I see the ACC contract as undervalued. To have that contract though 2036 is a liability, especially if the BIG, B12, and SEC will all have gone through negotiations of their contracts by then. I think being the last to negotiate a contract didn't work out for the PAC, and could be a real problem when 2036 rolls around. (just my opinion)
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
appear to be unable to play their way onto the list of 3. If a team (i.e. Wake or BC) gets its act together and its football is performing at a Clemson-like level, then what is its reward? There is a possibility that ESPN won't see much of a change in their ratings because the national audience really doesn't care about the program. As a result, they won't get to play Notre Dame or the other 3 top tier programs more frequently because their ratings don't support making the change. What (if any) has Wake/BC really gained by making the investment and improving its football program to a high level?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the high level. Anything that suggest any ACC school not named UNC, NCSU(backpack), Clemson, FSU and Miami, has any chance of going to the big money is just not realistic.
VT and the ACC are now competing with the B12 to be at least equal partners in the new mid level between the P2 and G5.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
even fired?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
This is the piece many miss on this topic. There isn’t a direct correlation
between on-field performance and national viewer interest. It gets back to how we define brand. It takes years to build lasting brand. Winning is no guarantee. But for schools like VT, it is all you can control in the race for brand.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
All you need to gain national recognition is that Top-25 ranking on the TV screen when you play. Success makes you relevant.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
There is a difference between relevance and brand.
Yes, relevance can be attained in one season if you win. It takes many years to become a brand.
Current relevance does not make you attractive to another conference or a tv network lining up a 10 year contract. Brand does. And building brand requires a history of winning some big games against top 5 opponents. That will be very difficult for us to do in the ACC with our schedules.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
H
hokieZ71
1y
It's far easier for VT to put its brand in a great light than GT, Syracuse or Wake or Duke, UVA or Pitt to do the same.
We are ahead of most in the ACC from that perspective. We've just got to win some damn games.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 1/31/2025, 1:42:01 PM
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
Our “brand” is:
Enter Sandman
Lunch pail defense
Beamerball
Michael Vick
Hokie Bird
Frank Beamer
Bud Foster
Special Teams
Blocked Kicks
Lane Stadium noise
Lee Corso’s rental car
Turkey Legs
Fans jumping up and down every game
Now define the national “brand” for Ole Miss, Indiana, South Carolina, Illinois, Arkansas, Mizzou…hell, our “brand” might even be stronger than Wisconsin, Nebraska, Washington, Mich St, Texas A&M…
VT BABY!!!
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
1y
or able to recover as you do.
ESPN rode VT in a different era. We made them money but did they ever want it to be us?
the ACC set the championship for Florida because they wanted Miami vs FSU, the national brands. They never wanted us to win one much less 4x champions.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
1y
the next important date, then is that really enough time for a program to build its brand up?
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
in the playoffs, it will garner attention. Even if it's a Boise State against (pick a team).
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
Yes. It will garner attention. Often mostly due to the opponent. And just
for that one game.
ABC isn’t motivated to set up a future regular season game for BSU in a prime viewer time spot because BSU played in the playoffs the prior year or two. That requires “brand”.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
year to year. maybe the ACC and B12 should do the same. That, and get creative with the OOC schedules. the SMU BYU was a really good matchup last year because both were in contention for the playoffs. It's just when they played, no one paid attention because it was unusual for them to be in contention.
I'm not saying that both teams would be in contention this year, but a match up in 2025 would garner more attention, and maybe a better time slot. An Arizona State game against any of the top ACC schools would garner attention this year, as apposed to last.
I think my point, is that the ACC and the B12 could do much better with their scheduling year in, and year out. Both in and out of conference. They just have to leave a date or two open every year.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
dates will likely force schools to overpay for an opponent or "settle" for a DI-FCS opponent. For example, Michigan cancelled its home-home series with VT in January/February of the year they were scheduled to play the first game. Michigan backfilled that slot with a home game against Arkansas State. While VT was forced to scramble for a replacement opponent and ended up being forced to agree to a home-home series with Middle Tennessee. VT's home game was played in the year it was scheduled, but the game at Middle Tennessee was cancelled due to COVID. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt there are too many ADs who would want to be placed in that position every year.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the team was in question, not the date, or the place? It would be a bonanza in ratings if the top ACC teams played the top B12 teams, especially the week before rivalry week. many SEC schools schedule cupcakes that weekend, and the ACC/B12 could own it with late matchups with playoff contenders. A play in game for an at large berth would be on the line. Do it for the entire conference, on down the line based on records and rankings. Alternate home fields, and I know I would watch those games.
It's time to compete with the P2, as I'm sick and tired of being pushed around by them and the networks.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
issue of teams fighting over home games. Plus, there could be fighting within the conference to not get stuck with a team that historically resides in the cellar of the other conference or has very poor ratings (i.e. BC, Wake, Duke, Kansas, etc.). The reason the home-away isn't as big of a deal for the conference challenges in basketball is because every team plays a lot more home games during the regular season. So 1 game won't make a huge difference in the bank account. The same isn't true for football though.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
doesn't have to be a one and one. A two year contract would be necessary. it's about the ratings for the top games, and the money is for the next media contract.
Remember, the rights for the ACC and B12 games are already locked up for the current contract. We are all now playing for playoff spots, and ratings for the next contract. Even if Netflix was interested in those games, the money goes to ESPN(FOX), not the schools. They own the rights.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
current members will be leaving the conference. Once schools start to leave the ACC, then all bets are off on how things shake out at that point. It is even possible that the ACC doesn't exist as a conference in 10+ years.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
one year, and then the apposing conference the next. If KU and BC are bottom feeders that year, they play each other, and end up on streaming or the ACCN. If Kansas and VT are both in third place in their respective conference, then you will see me at Lane.
When you have nothing, ....
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
value of the opponent is not the same. For example, Kansas ends up playing at Clemson in 2025. You can bet that Kansas' AD will be upset if Kansas ends up playing BC or Wake at home in 2026 instead of Clemson. The same would hold true for most of the ACC ADs. Only the ADs at the top tier schools (i.e. Clemson, FSU, and Miami) won't care who the opponent is because they will make the same amount of money from the home game.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
they play. If KU has a sucky year (which is the norm), then they will play a sucky ACC team. Performance matters.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
then you will TCU didn't have a full stadium for its game against WVU and Kansas didn't have a full stadium for its home game against Oklahoma. Even though you say attendance isn't an issue for the Big XII, it appears it may have been at one time and it could be an issue again in the future.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
and recent success, KU will - but for how long is any ones guess. TCU has strong attendance usually, but there are always exceptions.
The rule of thumb however, is that the stadiums are full.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
opponent happens to be BC, Duke, or Wake though? Some years you could even include GT, Pitt, and Syracuse on that list. It is possible that Big XII fans could develop a similar attitude towards those schools that currently exist among most ACC fans.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
generation, but all of those except Wake and Duke have competed for national championships.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
competed for a national championship. For example, BC's only national championship in football was in 1940 and it finished ranked in the Top 5 in both polls (AP and Coaches) in 1984. After that the only time BC was in the national championship discussion was in 2007 for the last week in October, the first week in November, and maybe the second week in November. Losses to FSU on November 3 and Maryland on November 10 quickly ended those discussions. I am pretty sure GT, Pitt, and Syracuse have a similar story as BC because most of their success occurred prior to 2000.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
won't care about their bottom line. Hence why I said the value of the opponent will matter to an AD because it could impact attendance.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
article saying that. If that list of 3 is dynamic in nature, and schools can play themselves into it, it could be an outstanding development. If VT for example, all of a sudden plays itself into playoff contention year after year, It would be good for the conference and ESPN to add them to the mix. The same goes for UNC, or any other school that makes the investments to be in contention - and sustains it.
ND is a wild card in scheduling for all of the schools in the ACC. They should use that advantage, not to be fair to anybody, but to increase the national attention to all of their ACC games.
SMU was added to ND's schedule by a fluke. What if they were added because they were a playoff team? Success begets success, and schools should be rewarded not only for their success on the field, but they should also have an opportunity for that "brand" money as well.
Schedule the top teams in the ACC to play each other, every year, and you might be on to something.
The BIG and SEC do not have that luxury, because they have so many top teams, those teams will not want to play a tough schedule every year. The B12 and ACC do not have that luxury.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
First, the 3 schools (maybe 4 if you include UNC) will likely be permanent fixtures on the list regardless of their records because of their ratings. Second, the 2024 Indiana team may be a good example as to why the list shouldn't be dynamic. Should the 2025 Indiana team be added to the list even if it returns to the more traditional form and likely would drop off the list in 2026? It is am important question to ask since the schedulers will want to try to ensure the home-away balance is maintained over a period of time. Even if the ACC waits 2 years before adding/removing teams to the list, that will likely still create a ripple effect for the future schedule rotation.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
they have to do to keep the conference together, then what choice do the rank and file of the ACC have?
A one off good (lucky) year should not be the criteria. Sustaining a high level is very difficult, and takes a dynamic coach and recruiting - and money - to maintain that level of success. It shouldn't be that hard to recognize when that materializes, but there are risks in everything.
The mantra out here is when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose ...
** Edited by Big12 guy at 1/31/2025, 11:37:08 AM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
larger group could always say 'H3LL NO WE WON'T GO!" to this proposal. Given that majority of the ACC schools' fate are already sealed, it is unlikely they will make that much more money between now and whenever the GOR ends. The sooner they get their ducks in a row for what their next reality will be, the better off the athletic department will probably be in the long run. The ACC as we know it today is a dead conference walking. There are enough schools who won't want to sign another GOR regardless of the length. The ACC has not resolved the "king" debate between basketball and football. BTW the Big East asks "Sound familiar?"
Even if the GOR survives until June 30, 2036, the odds are increasing that the ACC will go through a divorce of some kind in the future. Hence why I pointed out the possibility that the ACC football schools could end up forming a new conference. It may be their best chance of continuing to receive similar money that the ACC receives now because they don't have to worry about the deadweights any more. Plus, it would allow the basketball schools to go back to doing their own thing like the Big East is currently doing. It would not surprise me if the ACC basketball schools are content with the possibility of having a similar deal as the Big East's current deal because they know they will never make the kind of commitment to football to pay any dividends.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
VT should of had joining the SEC as its goal instead of being so focused on joining the ACC.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
Basically it will increase Miami, F$U and CU's football profile at the expense of every other school, including VT. They will use ND's numbers to show how they get more eyes (and now more ACC money) where the schools who play ND less will be left out.
The rest of the large public ACC universities are getting screwed.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
want we deserve. If you think we deserve better I’d love to hear about it. We are no better than Wake BC or Syracuse and we will get payed like it now. It’s certainly more than what we could get in a diminished ACC if Clemson, FSU, UNC and Miami left because we aren’t going anywhere. No one what’s a problem that simply refuses to make the investments necessary to compete. We bring no value what so ever. Having a great entrance and nothing else doesn’t cut it.
** Edited by Poultrygeist at 1/31/2025, 12:10:08 PM
** Edited by Poultrygeist at 1/31/2025, 12:15:39 PM
** Edited by Poultrygeist at 1/31/2025, 2:19:25 PM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1y
And if it was our admin, how come so many other teams are in the same place.
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
1y
their football program because they will never be added to that list. Hence why I included no improvement to the ACC's football image.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 1/31/2025, 10:55:15 AM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)