B1G expansion candidates evaluated…
Article updated June 1 but doesn’t note Miami AAU bid, presumably making it more attractive candidate.
Link:
B1G
122 Replies
P
PaNDalum
3y
Many posters here could write a more informed summary
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
Perception of Virginia Tech....
"Not quite of the scholarly stripe of its commonwealth brethren, it’s also up in the Blue Ridge away from the tony academic bastions." HA HA! Iowa City, Lincoln, State College, West Lafayette, ..... I guess the writer thinks Tech is a backwards Appalachian school filled with hillbillies named Jethro and Ellie May. Academically, Tech is better or no less than equal to Penn State, Rutgers, UMCP, Ohio State, Indiana, Michigan State, Iowa, Purdue, Minnesota and Nebraska. I guess if Tech were located in Fredericksburg, it would be an AAU member and Top 50 university. The thing is, 99% of these writers have never been to Blacksburg and have only seen Lane Stadium or Cassell Coliseum on television. How many times have sports commentators doing a game at Tech for their first time remarked how beautiful and impressive Tech's campus is. Most are surprised. Most don't know that Tech is also a Top 50 research university and has one of the nation's six senior military colleges.
** Edited by Old Line Hokie at 6/2/2023, 6:41:12 PM
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
3y
Big academic research institutions perceive it as a school which would be much less selective if it had a B1G sized enrollment. Sort of a much smaller, but not as highly-regarded version of Michigan.
And in terms of academic research reputation, it would probably rank somewhere in the middle - as would VT. It would certainly be behind Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Illinois, and UCLA - and arguably behind USC, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State and Iowa as well. And it would rank well behind Washington as well if UW is in the mix for consideration.
North Carolina is similar, but bigger and a better academic research rep (it’s borderline top 10 in research $). But still small by B1G standards.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/3/2023, 7:24:36 PM
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
I am surprised and somewhat alarmed that the B1G hasn't taken UW.
IMO, they are the #2 football option in the Pac-12 behind USC. Much better fan base than UCLA. Great home atmosphere. Also huge in terms of research. Seattle market. New state. Pacific Northwest region.
I say "alarmed" because it shows us how picky the B1G and SEC can afford to be. So all these people predicting that eight schools from the ACC can just vote to disband the ACC and find homes in the P2 are wildly optimistic.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/4/2023, 8:45:05 PM
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
I agree with you. But I would also say that the ACC has three schools
that I think would be great additions to either P2 conference: UNC, FSU and Clemson. The latter two being football cachet galore, and UNC is a huge athletic and academic brand with a great central location.
Everyone else in the ACC is a second tier or worse. Some quality second tier candidates mind you (like VT for instance), but second tier nonetheless. I would also put several Pac-12 schools in this quality second tier as well.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
I know the annual conf expansion conversation gets everyone excited here but the only reason the B1G or the SEC would add any ACC school - including those three - is the fear of missing out and potentially being forced to accept lesser programs. However even those three schools are not particularly compelling (at least in B1G and SEC terms - which aren’t quite the same). So as long as both confs adher to the mutally assured destruction model, i don’t see any movement on ACC schools any time soon (regardless of the GOR).
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/5/2023, 9:51:51 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
Not one school in the ACC brings as much to the table - and has fewer drawbacks - as UW.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
3y
three schools he calls good P2 additions and he arguably left out another 2 or three. Your ignoring reality comment said "not one school........ as UW" which seems a stretch that at least borders on ignoring reality. Question still stands.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
3y
Although it’s probably been answered too…you just don’t like the answer.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
you've just got nothing to defend your original statement and looking for a way out.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
3y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
same question as before that you continue to sidestep. You stated, "not ONE school brings as much to the table-and has fewer drawbacks-as UW". I asked you how you valued them that high? Maroon Baboon's original post talked about why he thought UW was better than UCLA and that he was surprised the B1G had not taken UW, however, it is silent on the merits versus other schools. His second post identifies not one but, three ACC schools that could fit the bill. You haven't answered the question even in your subsequent reply to Maroon Baboon. I am asking you to specifically support your statement on UW. If you cannot that is fine but, do not pretend the question has been answered because it has not.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
P
pine52x
3y
I think they eventually bring in at least 2 more institutions from the west coast. Maybe just waiting to see what happens with the Pac-12 in the short-term.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
but it doesn't make any sense. It would be like the PAC12 adding VT and UVA and then adding Florida Atlantic and Miami as "travel partners". Los Angeles is the same distance from Eugene, OR as Miami is from Blacksburg. 850ish miles doesn't make them travel partners.
(In response to this post by pine52x)
3y
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
3y
The 10:00P ET and 10:30P ET slots don't get the Eastern time zone viewers (51% of the total) and not much of the Central time viewers (26% of the total). The Pacific time zone is only 17%, and Mountain time zone is 6%. The time slots that the B1G have are 10A PT, 1P PT, and 5P PT, 100% of the total football viewing audience will be awake for those games, especially on the East Coast.
Right now, there are about 13 slots for late night football on FS1, those slots will be divided up between the Big XII, MWC, and B1G. The MWC probably has a minimum number of slots reserved for certain schools like Boise State and BYU for conference games and home games against P/G5 schools.
If there was a huge financial windfall for these slots, then ESPN would be falling all over themselves to sign the PAC to a huge contract.
Link:
PAC 12 after dark
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
3y
I don't think it's going to happen, but what do I know.
(In response to this post by pine52x)
I hear ya. But I think if that's the strategy, it's garbage.
The B1G is allowing these great institutions to wist in the wind. And the longer they are out there, the more damage it is to the brand. If they want them, take them. If not, make it known to them in explicit terms and get on with it. In fact, the make up of the entire sport hangs in the balance.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/5/2023, 1:26:16 PM
(In response to this post by pine52x)
3y
Everybody has their Plan A and Plan B sketched-out. Nobody wants to make the next move. It will be the one that collapses the house of cards.
Call it conspiracy theory, but keeping this stuff undecided until the AAU results were announced was a very bad-smelling coincidence.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
1. Doesn't want to be seen as a conference killer, especially of their longtime Rose partner (though that's exactly what they are);
2. Originally wanted Oregon + USC, but got 'BC'ed' into taking UCLA. The P12 would have been more stable still having UCLA and the SoCal market somewhat intact;
3. They may be getting less than stellar feedback from Fox on the value add of O+W at current;
4. Probably still working ND hard and waiting to see where that goes, since they could have anyone they want outside of the SEC (and maybe ACC with intact GOR).
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
On Point 1. Taking USC and the LA market all but killed the Pac-12.
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
I think the B1G already severely damaged to Pac-12...
like the ACC damaged the Big East in the first round of expansion. I guess we'll know sooner than later if the Pac-12 ends up like the BEFC. A lot of rumors coming from the 4 corners schools.
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
3y
what could they do? Refer them to The SEC? The PAC was dead before The B1G ever took a bite.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
Fair point. SEC had the same problem when Texas and OU came calling.
I still hate the whole thing though.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2
2hhoop3
3y
who, how and why got BCed into taking UCLA?
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
2
2hhoop3
3y
an opinion about schools. The reality is the worth of the graduates of a particular school in the end has a lot more to do with the individual graduates and their work ethics and personal characteristics than it does with the particular school. Unfortunately, some schools, some professors and some in society make the mistake of overvaluing the school and undervaluing the individual.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
M
Mercury
3y
They no 1 dont know vt. No idea ivt is 38k and a diverse national atidwnt body with huge cmapus in dmv .and huge reaearch and medical achool . And amazon close partnership .
Vt is ok but fsu shoild be worred big ten likes aau and usf and miami have it and fsu didnt get a sniff. Also sec not calling but fsu is acreamng.
Actually unc state uva and vt pretty damn toght. Group. And thst is itiminating to both sec and big 10.
Could be the school that os left for big 12 - fsu???
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
3y
West Virginia is a good school. The doctor down here in FL that delivered my two daughters 22 and 20 years ago went to West Virginia medical school. He is a terrific doctor. It makes me mad that West Virginia is not in the ACC. They are a big rival for VT and Pitt. Also, a good rival for Miami, Syracuse, and BC. More than that though is the elitist attitude toward the state of West Virginia that the ACC traditional schools seem to have. A lot of areas of NC and VA are no different then West Virginia.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
We are middle of the road as far as institutional rankings go. And we love
to badmouth schools ranked lower while the schools ranked higher do the same to us. I really don’t give a crap where a school is ranked. A student will get out of college what they put into it. A WVU education can set up a motivated student for success far more than what a UVA education can do for the apathetic student.
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
P
pine52x
3y
(In response to this post by RoswellGAHokie)
3y
And maybe not even mid-major.
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
3y
Mostly, consistently hostile. LOL
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
3y
But toward people living in the real world - particularly as it pertains to the discussion at hand…not at all.
WVU ranks about 125th in research funding (at around $200M) and research space (a proxy for commitment to research) - with the $ per nsf being a decent indicator of the caliber of research. That’s basically medium sized research institution - at best. For comparison - VT is about 250% larger - and that’s less research funding and about half the $/nsf than George Mason (which doesn’t have a medical school/hospital and isn’t the flagship university for the state). As far as I know, WVU has never had a member of its faculty elected to the National Academy of Sciences.
And do you really want to talk about academic reputation?
WVU simply doesn’t have much of a reputation as an academic or research institution. It is the research equivalent of G5 school - maybe. Period. You may not like the truth and you may find the truth “hostile’, but it still the truth.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/4/2023, 7:52:25 PM
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
V
Vippie1
3y
they also produced Mrs. Vippie who is pretty impressive also, and many others .
But WVU and Vt aren't in the same stratosphere academically and it isn't elitism to notice. What is higher education if not for a pecking order? We, as fans, can argue whether it makes sense as a criteria in forming an athletic conference or not, but it is an important reality to the folks that run and staff universities. And for that reason, IMO, it will always be a pretty big factor in conference realignment whether fans like it or not.
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
3y
for lifestyle and options for obtaining the basic skills necessary for 21st century life. The Medical School may be just fine, but the university as a whole is on par with U of L, and that's BAD. Public educational system is ranked 50th and this only exacerbates the perception that this is the standard WV residents are happy with. They should be thankful they have the BIG 12, because the liklihood of getting into the BIG or SEC is slightly above nil !!
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
3y
I see a lot of support for it on this board, but it will get blackballed by at least half of the schools in the ACC. Aside from maybe Louisville, I doubt any other ACC school would support its membership. there are many hard no’s in the membership for that school.
(In response to this post by OrlandoHokie)
H
HOO86
3y
I don't see the anti WVU sentiment anymore. Not now with revenue as the need. The ACC doesn't have time for academic snobbery. Need revenue.
(In response to this post by LeadingEdge)
What do you mean the ACC needs to add?
Does a small state like CT bring that much more money to existing ACC schools? If so, why not go after schools in bigger states? If not, how is UConn going to bring more revenue? Total downer for football.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
3y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
I would think VT would be a "yes" vote on a WVU ACC invitation.
I would also think Pitt and Syracuse and aforementioned Louisville.
Luke warm: FSU, BC, Clemson, Miami.
But there would be a ton of hard NOs.
So even if they could get to 8 votes, the pro-WVU faction probably thinks it isn't worth the hassle for what is only a small upside.
(In response to this post by LeadingEdge)
3y
their chance, and snubbed them. Same with BYU over in the PAC. Bet they wish they were available too. There is absolutely no scenario that WVU will leave the Big12 for the ACC.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/4/2023, 3:53:48 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
The P2 are dealing in the realm of Texas and USC, and you are talking about
WVU and UConn? Neither of these schools are game changers for the ACC, for even the BigXII for that matter.
And WVU has no rivalry in the BigXII that compares to Pitt or Virginia Tech. And they would much rather be in the ACC for geography. I won't portend to think what WVU would do if they had the choice, because they don't. For better or for worse, they have no invite, and never did. I will say that their roots are in old Eastern Football, not in the Plains.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/5/2023, 6:35:59 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
the environment we are living in, if the BIG and SEC poach teams from the ACC, and you are not invited - you will see these teams as missed opportunities,
I don't think the ACC can move forward thinking they will not be touched by this realignment mess. You guys are talking about dropping schools for gods sake. If 4 go, and Tech isn't one of them?
Frankly, VT would fit in any conference, but that is not how things are shaking out. You missed UCF (another school that isn't a game changer). You are stiff arming UConn, USF? Not even on the radar. hell, it's possible you guys loose any presence in Florida, and yet, you are complacent. Memphis is another school out there waiting to be had. You could have had Houston, and have been in the Texas market.
I don't get it.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
If the top 4 ACC schools go, the ACC is dead anyway. I won't fret over
not having made a play for UConn, Memphis, or USF. Small potatoes.
I've said on several occasions that VT should be looking to 2036 as the end of the ACC. And consequently, they should be planning on what to do if the P2 doesn't invite them. They should be planning on forming a football conference with like-minded universities nationwide. They should work to form a conference that is FOOTBALL centric. The ideal conference would have one school per state to maximize TV revenue, and should be mostly public universities with large fan bases.
Let's say that the B1G and SEC stop at 16 each. Neither the ACC, the BigXII or the PAC-12 is competing with that financially and competitively. SO let's say the best of the rest form into such a conference. It could look something like this:
VT, FSU, Clemson, NC State, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Utah; I'd include Cal and Texas Tech just to get those two states in the TV contract. And maybe a few others to consider: Pittsburgh, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, maybe even private Syracuse if the NY market is key to the TV contract. I would LOVE to play in this conference. Not as many blue bloods as the P2, but less dead weight IMO. And if the B1G takes UVa and UNC, so be it.
But at this point, I'm not really interested in UConn, USF, or Memphis WADR.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/4/2023, 9:52:01 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
fan, is really good quality and competitive in the Big12, so I wouldn't mind seeing UCONN on the schedule.
I really think that this realignment for football dollars is a handful of teams from being over with. there will be another pile of money when the basketball tournament is re negotiated - but I'm not disillusioned, while it may help conferences be competitive, it will not be anywhere near football money. An extra 5M-15M per school though, is nothing to sneeze at.
The days of starting from scratch and starting a new conference? I guess anything is possible, but I don't see any media package that would entice those schools to break away and form a new conference. We are stuck with what we have.
The Big10 is not going to 20-24 teams. Not at 100M a year. The SEC may be content the way they are, but I'm not the one writing the checks.
If Apple and Amazon get a piece of the PAC, and they are officially in the CFB arms race? That could be a game changer, as the have a lot of money, and there is only so much live content that people are willing to pay to watch.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
R
RJHokie
3y
The only missed opportunities in New England are the pro teams, and they ain’t joining the ACC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
and the football has no where to go but up. The football battle is all but over. The next pile of money will be basketball. `It all comes down to the money.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
3y
demolish its on campus stadium to build a multi-million dollar basketball practice facility and agree to play in the state built football stadium on an abandoned airfield in East Hartford which is about a 30-45 minute drive from the campus in Storrs. It is worth noting that UConn's football stadium is only larger than Wake's and Duke's football stadium. Also, according to an article I found from last year, UConn's stadium is need of major repairs and there is uncertainty on whether the state has any interest to spend more money on it. After all the state only agreed to build it in the first place because it was trying to lure the New England Patriots from Foxboro, MA.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 6/4/2023, 8:14:59 PM
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
That is up. All of those decisions were made before the OUT and USCLA announcements. Add in the media contract for the Big10 at projected 80M - 100M a year, and it's got every ones attention.
The game has changed. Can you enhance the conference payout, or not? Any other question is a moot point in this new game.
The ACC with their new post season revenue distribution (which I agree with), relegates UCONN to like an East Carolina status. Some good points, cool uniforms, and competitive games - but they don't even come close to raising VT's media money.
That, is a double edged sword.
Now, you have FOX over there, that has invested a LOT in basketball with the Big12, Big East, and now the Big10. That is a LOT of basketball content. Now, the Big12, ascending to compete as the top basketball conference - if they add Gonzaga, and UCONN, they are positioned to recruit the best basketball players, no matter what the Big10 or SEC makes in football money.
It's a good move on the chess board to keep the BIG and SEC from breaking away and forming their own league. Keep in mind, money or not, most of the football blue bloods will now be playing each other in the regular season. The math doesn't pencil out. They all can't remain blue bloods any more, because the average Big10 or SEC record is .500.
The ACC needs to stay together, as It's my contention that there are a dozen or so teams worth the big money. If that.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
with the status quo. IMHO up is a very very very very low percentage of happening because of UConn's off campus stadium issue. Think Miami's situation, but 50x worse because UConn has never invested in its football brand even when it competed in the DI-FCS subdivision. Also, its fan base never really cared about the football program even when it competed at the DI-FCS subdivision. UConn could have dropped its football program, regardless of what DI subdivision UConn is competing in, and no one would have missed a thing. Heck even the state of CT has regret for building the stadium in the first place because they put all their eggs into Plan A and knew early on that Plan B (no Patriots) was not really a viable alternative plan after all.
UMass is another school that is basically in the same boat as UConn. The reason both schools made the decision to switch DI subdivisions is because their leadership realized, albeit too late, that the money going forward would be in football and both programs desperately tried to grab whatever slice of money pie they could before it was too late. In all honesty, both program are much better suited to compete at the DI-FCS level with schools like Hofstra, Delaware, Villanova, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, and Towson because both schools, including their fan bases, share the same level commitment as these schools in terms of how much of an investment they are willing to commit to the football program. IIWII and there's nothing wrong with a school realizing that its heart isn't into football like it is with basketball.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
R
RJHokie
3y
And in reality, UConn had decent/good support to upgrade their football program, the state built the stadium (which is easily expandable), and then the ACC pulled the rug out from the Big East by annexing three members. Subsequently UConn joined a watered down Big East, the football team had moderate success in that conference but the conference finances took a big hit after the annexation of three members by the ACC. And then the bottom fell out.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
could be easily expanded at any time in the future. I wish VT had decided to go that route at any time Lane Stadium was expanded. Given that UConn was extremely late to the party, I have a feeling its in a Catch-22 situation. UConn football isn't really on the radar of any bigger named conference until UConn starts to win more consistently and make a bigger commitment to its football program (including stadium upgrades). However, UConn doesn't have any chance of that happening until its a member of a bigger named conference.
If history is any indication and UConn does end up in the ACC, then I have a feeling that the ACC will be watered down just like the Big East was because all the big named programs have moved on to either the Big Ten or SEC. Heck if the ACC had decided to add UConn instead of L'ville, then I suspect you would have seen several football schools decide to leave the ACC over the decision.
I do find the idea of UConn joining the Big XII to be an interesting one given the reasons UConn left the AAC to re-join the Big East. At least the Big XII and AAC have similar, maybe even the same, geography so it will be interesting to see what it takes to change UConn's attitude again. Particularly if UConn doesn't get another opportunity to re-join the Big East for a third time because UConn no longer wants to remain in the Big XII.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
"UCONN football has only one way to go and that is up" isn't exactly
a good selling point to get into a major college football conference. But if that's the case, then why not add Roanoke College--they just added football the 2024 season. They truly have only one way to go.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
would be fine if they decide to put the effort in, no different then any other University.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
missing here. If UConn did want to put any effort into it, then they wouldn't have decided to demolish their on campus stadium (Memorial Stadium), which BTW only had a capacity of 16,200, so it could build a multi-million dollar basketball practice facility in its place. To give you an idea of just how small Memorial Stadium was for a DI-FBS stadium, the Kibbie Dome, Idaho's stadium, has a capacity of 16,000 and one of the reasons Idaho made the decision a few years ago to switch back to DI-FCS and re-join the Big Sky conference.
Given that the state of CT plans to only provide approximately $24 million over the next 2 years for the renovations to the "Rent" and its sounds like UConn has renewed its lease for another 5 seasons, UConn has another opportunity to put forth any effort by raising some money to help cover some of the renovations. It would be a shrewd PR move on UConn's part given that it is the primary tenant at the "Rent" and people have been questioning UConn's commitment to its football program ever since it announced it would be switching DI subdivisions in the late 90s/early 00s and the stadium must meet NCAA standards.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
This is about football, if you haven't figured that out yet. Otherwise KU
would be in the B1G or the SEC already.
I'm sure the NATIONAL audience is waiting on pins and needles for that Saturday night prime time Iowa State-UConn football game from Stoors.
And UConn football may very well be fine, but their ratings won't be. I'm sure when Oklahoma State is trying to stay relevant vis-a-vis OU, that they are going to be thrilled to play UConn the same weekend OU has the likes of LSU, Texas, or Alabama.
Football pedigree matters. And UConn has little to none of it. I am hard pressed to remember one significant football game of NATIONAL importance that UConn has played in. I also can't think of one Heisman finalist, one Outland Trophy winner, one top-pick in the NFL Draft, or even one player that captured the nation's attention.
But if you want to add UConn, go right ahead. But will they make money for the rest of the members? That's the bottom line.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/5/2023, 12:59:28 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
has already been served. Except for MAYBE a handful of schools, Football realignment is done. The BIG and SEC brought the last four schools in to maximize the media payout for their football. This has nothing to do with weather a team should, deserves, wants to be in the P2. If you aren't a national brand, you are on the outside, looking in.
Washington is as close to a national brand as you have in the West. There are other REALLY good programs out there, but none of them are worth the $80M to $100M that UCLA and USC brought to the table.
How many Universities that fit the blue blood national brand football team that is a national brand worth 100M left on the table? 2-4 in the ACC? I'm not talking about programs that could compete, as there are many, I'm talking about how many teams rise to the status of Texas, OU, USC (ucla)? in football? After ND, who?
FSU had a really good long run with Bowden. Clemson was hot in the early 80's and just recently. No different then Oregon has been the last 20 years. Not a single one of those schools come close to Texas, USC, and OU. Not one.
The ACC signed their death warrant with uneven distributions. No one will be happy how that plays out.
VT is a football school, and so far, it's only football revenue driving the bus. That will change, not because football will falter, but because all the time zones and media dollars for that content will have been spent. I don't think there is more money out there for a better media deal for the ACC, Big12, or the PAC in football. The big moves, -ND, and possibly a few others, is already over with.
The Big12 will not be the top football conference moving forward, as they know their place in the pecking order. You guys here in the ACC are measuring the wrong thing when it comes to the Big12. You are vying for the 3rd best football conference, or something like that because what your measuring is an inch longer?
It's a trap. While FSU is yelling at anyone that will listen that they are worth more because of the size of their "ball", the Big12 is making moves that will put them in a position to be THE premier basketball conference,
Never in a million years did I ever see a day where the Big12 would be a better basketball conference then the ACC, would never have taken that bet.
But while you are yelling about how good of a conference you are, and are willing to let go of Cuse, BC, Louisville, and turning your nose up at UCONN, the big 12 is positioning themselves to have the East Coast basketball lined up.
minus the original ACC, who will always be basketball centric, There are a few programs that will find themselves in no mans land. Good programs, good facilities, fantastic fans, and where will they end up?
Just one mans opinion here, but You just might find the basketball brands breaking off, just like the football brands have.
It's over - there isn't an infinite pile of money for football that hasn't already been spent, but there is a pile of money for basketball that mostly hasn't even been mentioned yet.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Lots of straw man arguments here.
I know you are new here, but the accusations you lay before me are in reaction to positions I have never held, and positions that I have actually written here against.
1. "You are vying for the 3rd best football conference." False. In fact, before the two recent realignment moves, I considered the ACC to be the FIFTH best conference in the sport. And now, it really doesn't matter if we are 3rd, 4th, or 5th. It is like arguing who is the tallest midget in the circus. It is the gap between the ACC and the P2 that I am concerned about, and so is Florida State.
2. "But while you are yelling about how good of a conference you are, and are willing to let go of Cuse, BC, Louisville, and turning your nose up at UCONN." False. I am NOT willing to let go of those three schools. All three have given the ACC cable subs in New York, Massachusetts, and Kentucky. And ALL have decidedly more football pedigree than UConn. I also never said anything about how great the ACC is. In fact, I think it is run by lightweights. While it is our home, I was not happy about the whole process that basically forced us to back-door our way into the conference. And recently, these losers just dropped the annual VT-Miami football series to show you how clueless they are.
3. "The ACC signed their death warrant with uneven distributions." While not a straw man argument, it is both something way over-stated and a Catch-22. The unequal distribution of money will NOT make a significant difference in closing the gap between any single ACC team, and the P2. And it is a Catch-22 because people like fear-mongering about the dangers of unequal revenue sharing. But USC and Texas just left (and all but ruined) their respective conference because the P2 money gap was too large. So to me, just pick your poison. Lastly, I am fine with unequal revenue sharing as long as it is based on on-the-field performance. But I also don't see it as the savior or the downfall of a conference.
Finally, here are some things that I've said in the past, long before you arrived at TSL.
-When the 2003 ACC expansion took place, it should have involved ALL of the Big East football schools at that same time (Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse, and even *gulp* Rutgers). I would have also been willing to take on ALL of the original Big East basketball (non-D1 football) schools for basketball. St. John's, Georgetown, UConn, Villanova, Seton Hall, Providence. Instead, all sides slow-played it. And pretty much all parties were worse off for it.
-And you might be right that the football pie could be done growing. But I have been sounding the alarm here about the entire sport killing the golden goose by turning off the devout college football fans. I actually have ideas to grow the football pie, but I won't bother getting into them now since the suits who run the sport now lack the forward thinking to even consider implementing them.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/6/2023, 11:17:42 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
on this thread, and yes, while I'm new, there are many here, and through out the country, measuring their media deal against the Big10, the SEC, and the Big12. At the end of the day, I don't think it means much at all. I say - good for them.
I agree 100% with your first point except that the gap isn't a deal breaker, and you shouldn't even measure yours against theirs.
On #2, I don't think the ACC should get rid of anyone, it's my humble opinion that they should expand.
On #3, that statement I made was not because I think that merit based distribution is a bad thing - I think it's a way better thing then sharing your hard earned bowl money with the conference. That can be a double edged sword at even the best programs go through a drought. My statement that it's a death warrant was how it was implemented and voted on. Clearly, there is a rift with FSO and others about the money, and this decision came with a gun to the head of some other Universities - they were given an offer they couldn't refuse.
Also, when there is a slow day, I'd like to hear your ideas on growing the football pie, as you seem to be passionate, and know your stuff.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
R
RJHokie
3y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
Wake me up when the BigXII invites UConn for football 🏈.
Inviting basketball only UConn would be like the ACC inviting Notre Dame for everything but football. Is the ACC making a few bucks off the deal? I suppose. But it bastardizes the brand and it's just flat out lame (it's lame for Notre Dame too, but I digress). I'm also not certain UConn basketball would leave the Big East unless the football team was also invited.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
are missing the larger point. If the top 4 ACC teams are poached, and VT is not part of it, the fact that Uconn, or any one else "doesn't bring enough money" will be irrelevant.
The Big12 just went through no mans land with the teams that were not invited to the P2. The PAC is going through it now, and they are scrambling to what? Bring in SDSU, when just a year ago, they didn't move the money needle, and weren't an academic fit. It just seems to me that the ACC will be in the same boat, probably sooner then later, but the GOR has been litigated on this board already, and I have nothing to add to that discussion except that if you guys sit back, and do nothing, you might find yourselves with not much out there to choose from, and will be blessed to have BC, Cuse, and Wake Forest.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
W
WBGV
3y
that any school from another Power 5 Conference wants to try and join. Membership is like being locked into a timeshare until 2036 that no one else wants. You desperately want out of the bad investment, but your options are limited and it doesn’t make you feel any better that others are in it with you.
(In response to this post by LeadingEdge)
3y
They just don't want a 30M - 40M a year disparity in the media money. It's that simple.
Clemson and FSU were content when the media deal was signed. They are not content anymore because two conferences poached 4 of the top 5 blue blood teams that were not in their conference previously.
Not a damned thing you can do about that, it happened. The only way to change the dynamic is for ACC, PAC, and Big12 teams to start winning some National Championships, and beating the SOB's on the field.
Oregon and Washington are not getting 80M - 100M a year in the Big10. Hell, it appears that they are struggling to get a media deal that will keep up with the ACC and Big12.
Does anyone think that if Iowa, a really good program with a strong fan base and history, would be invited to the Big10 if they were a Big12 team? I pick them because they deserve to be in the mix, but they are not OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, USC, then the second tier. The are on the line, because if they were available, they wouldn't give the ACC, PAC, or Big12 a raise if they switched conferences.
There are REALLY good programs in the ACC, but none of them rise to the level of OSU, Michigan, USC, ND. Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Alabama, LSU, and arguably, Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee.
There is only one blue blood left, and frankly, the future of college football is on their shoulders. If ND commits to a conference, ANY conference, it's all over but the crying. Unless they start their own conference with the remaining top programs.
Take the seven in the ACC for example. With respect, it could be reduced to 4 in a blink of an eye. Now take 3 - 4 from the PAC, then maybe 2 or 3 from the Big12.
That is a 12 member conference with ND that would reduce the remaining PAC, Big12, and ACC scrambling for the 4th best conference.
This will end in 4 conferences, and you will have the top 2, and the other 2. The only way to have a to 3 is to take the best of the rest, with ND, and form a new conference. It's not going to be the Big12, nor the PAC, and if we look at reality, it won't be the ACC either.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/3/2023, 8:30:27 PM
(In response to this post by WBGV)
T
TerryD
3y
...if ND is forced to join a damn conference for football, why should they join that hypothetical new one ?
It would have all the drawbacks of joining a conference without the perks of being a P2 one.
Less money, less exposure, lesser recruits, etc...
Does that make any sense for ND? Why?
Jack Swarbrick isn't being paid to "have the future of college football" on ND's shoulders.
He is being paid to maneuver through conference realignment and obtain the best results for ND.
ND has no such duty to anyone. No other school has such hypothetical constraints placed upon its actions.
It seems like every other school is clamoring to join a P2 conference, but some think ND should do something less for itself to somehow benefit "the future of college football".
Get Alabama to leave the SEC and Ohio State leave the Big Ten to form a third conference "for the future of college football".
Then, we can talk about ND doing so.
I am for ND football staying independent, but if it has to join a conference, it should be a P2 one.
** Edited by TerryD at 6/4/2023, 8:52:20 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
and I really don't think this is enough to change the situation.
but, With the P2 adding more of the blue bloods, if ND ever joins one of them they will have much less leverage in any negotiating - still more than some of the existing P2 schools - but much less than they have now. The idea of having your own rep at the table is out the window. Most ND fans can't even visualize this.
IF a new conference was formed, with ND - they would have the control much like Texas did.
I don't think ND would, or should, be part of a new conference just to "save college football" - they really don't have that much power anyway, CFB could and would exist without them - but to retain their separate ability to influence issues like the CFP they might at least think - for a minute or two.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
A few things.
0. You mention the schools wanting to stay in the ACC, but they can't handle the money gap. True. And Maryland is an example of this. They had a great football and basketball tradition in the ACC. They gave it all up for money. Mostly because they were in debt from what I heard. Sad.
1. Re: non-P2 winning more high profile OOC games. TCU getting cremated my Georgia was a massive L for more than just the Horned Frogs. It was dreadful news for the entire non-P2. We all needed TCU to make a good showing. And they were a no show. On top of that, you had a bunch of other high-profile non-CFP bowl games (an oxymoron, I know), getting pasted by P2 non champions. I'm thinking Tennessee over Clemson, PSU over Utah, and Alabama over K-state. None of those games were close.
2. RE: ND forming a conference with the best of the rest. Any talk about non-P2s forming a conference with ND is a waste of time now. That train left the station when USC joined the Big Ten. Any "third edition" to the P2 would have involved a USC-ND axis, and even then, it was speculative. And most ND people would say it was DOA.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
3y
The "cure" of ND joining/forming an all sports conference that included football was the same thing, the very "disease" that ND has always attempted to avoid for decades.
That never held any appeal at all for ND. None. Zero.
It never wanted football to be in a conference at all, so the idea of being the leader of a new one held/holds zero appeal for ND.
ND always just wanted people to "get off its lawn" and let it alone to be a football independent.
The damn conferences would not just let that happen, so here we are.
** Edited by TerryD at 6/4/2023, 9:02:57 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
3y
criteria for the teams you call really good programs in your paragraph 5? Ohio State, Bama, Georgia and LSU qualify under probably any metric. The rest not so sure.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
Big 10 has the same ACC elitist type feel. I would love to see my Hokies wrestle Penn State and Iowa every year but Big 10 football makes me want to vomit. Give me Athens over Columbus.
(In response to this post by Tuckahokie)
3y
25 UVA
29 UNC
49 OSU
51 Purdue
55 Miami / Washington / FSU / Rutgers / Maryland
62 VT / Pitt / Syracuse / Minnesota
67 Texas A&M
72 NCSU / Indiana
77 Clemson / Penn St / Mich St
83 Iowa
151 Nebraska
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 6/2/2023, 1:17:28 PM
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 6/2/2023, 1:17:49 PM
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
3y
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3y
It is very simple, athletic conferences are now about how to maximize the amount of revenue their sports programs can generate. End Stop.
Any school that a conference believes can increase the revenue each school will receive will be admitted to a conference if they will join. End Stop.
All this BS about academic rankings and AAU is nothing but talking heads and elitists pretending that this is about anything except my first statement to feed their over inflated egos. Every conference today has excellent schools, good schools and crap schools and will add an excellent, good or crap school if the economics work.
AAU is nothing but a club created by a bunch of elitists to make themselves feel better about themselves and allow them to sit around and stroke off each others egos. It will not get in the way of any team getting into the big ten if the numbers make sense, for god sake, MD, Rutgers and Neb were added in the last round of expansion, none of them are anything but average state U's...but the numbers worked.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3y
inflated egos." But those are the guys who make the choice about who gets in. If academic ratings are important to them, it will be part of the realignment calculus. The average college football fan can apply any value they wish to apply when it comes to academics, and it won't change their decision. Not saying it's right or wrong.
Do you believe The B1G would add Louisville, West Virginia, or Memphis? I'd say "no." And the first factor in the rejection would be academic standing.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
3y
they add a mouth without increasing the size of the pantry. They may say academics, but that is absolute BS and more self stroking. The simple answer is, there are only a small handful of teams left that can bring the SEC or Big10 more revenue than they cost...we aint one, the hoos aint one, puppy pack aint one. Heels are, Clemson is, Miami is and FSU is. GT may be for the Big 10 to get the ATL market, but not for the SEC, they already have that.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
V
VTCALS72
3y
They will sit at the same table for the whole scope of academic and research things as well as athletics as equal to the existing members. In the end, football may be the driver but those driving the academic and research parts will have a say in who sits at "their" table 365 days a year.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
Either UVA or Tech would give value to the B1G or SEC...
since the state if Virginia has 8.7 million residents. You could argue that the B1G already has the DC metro TV market which is tier 1 but they could gain two tier 2 TV markets in Hampton Roads and Richmond and Tier 3 in Roanoke-Lynchburg and the lower tiers in Charlottesville, Harrisonburg and even Bluefield WV/VA and Bristol TN/VA. Virginia as a state makes more sense for the SEC. Like the B1G wanting Atlanta. The states of Virginia and North Carolina still have value just as the states of Arizona and Washington do. Colorado is borderline. Oregon is too small. If it's about TV, even Boston College has a shot as does Syracuse (even though Rutgers represents the NYC TV market). Texas and Florida still has value to the B1G since they have no members in those states. Kansas City (Kansas-Missouri) may be the only other region that "may" add value to the B1G and that is slim compared to Virginia, North Carolina and Arizona. I don't know if the Illinois athletics is shown in the St. Louis area.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
3y
Search for a podcast by Malcolm Gladwell. There may be a written article as well.
The upshot is that students worked on a project that ultimately figured out how the USN&WR ranking "formula" works. And it is driven almost exclusively by peer ratings, generally by people who have no first-hand information about most other schools. So rankings are motivated by who is friends with who; i.e., who would you invite to a cocktail party.
The tie between Virginia Tech and Pitt is indicative in some ways. I live in Pittsburgh (after living in West Virginia most of my life) and graduated from Tech. Both Tech and Pitt are excellent schools. Pitt is an AAU member; Tech is not. Pitt has an outstanding history of medical research going back at least as far as Jonas Salk. Tech has not had a medical school until recently. Pitt is located in the middle of a Rust Belt city. Tech could not be located in a more rural setting. Both are public schools; although public schools in Pennsylvania like Pitt have a weird quasi-public quasi-private status. If push came to shove, I would say both Tech and Pitt lean towards the sciences versus the liberal arts, but otherwise, they could not be more different. So how can one rank them on the same scale? And why does it matter? Just like some folks at Tech folk and others are UVa folk, the same could be said about people who prefer or thrive at either Tech or Pitt.
Every school has a somewhat unique mission. They should be accepted as they are; not compared.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3y
a more rural setting”. Oh yes it could. Have you ever visited the Appalachia School of Law? Or driven by the old Keokee High School? Blacksburg is a metropolis compared to those 2 places.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
3y
an interstate which is also a major truck shipping route.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
3y
to be a population center.
(In response to this post by GCHokieof91)
Elites make the rankings. When the rest adapt to the rankings and begin to
outscore the elites, the elites move the goalposts. Seems like this is what's going on in the AAU as well.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
W
WBGV
3y
After listening to this podcast, it would be intellectually difficult to ever view school rankings with any degree of credibility ever again. This entertaining podcast talks about the history of the rankings, the secret formula, and the most important factor involved - peer ratings.
My favorite part is where the President of one college used a “homemade hot sauce” strategy to try and increase his school’s ranking. Hilarious!
** Edited by WBGV at 6/2/2023, 7:09:45 PM
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
P
pine52x
3y
them just to see where schools are ranked.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
W
WBGV
3y
is working.
Here is the link to the 2nd podcast in the series on school rankings. It is even more eye-opening than the first podcast.
(In response to this post by pine52x)
P
pine52x
3y
the next time I look at these particular rankings. A lot of HBCU's definitely have it rough enough without US News Report adding to their problems. Podcast said the average income for families of incoming freshmen at Dillard is $30K. Only about 50 percent will graduate, in-large-part due to financial hardship. So, US News knocks them down in the ranking because of graduation rate. That is eye opening to me. Has nothing to do with teaching or learning or how good or bad a university is. One of many things I learned from the podcast.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
S
Stech
3y
(all 4 of them) since UVA and UNC want to go to the same place too. That could be the B1G or the SEC if the APCC doesn't happen. However, I am not just talking sentiment here, I am talking dollars. I fully believe at a minimum the NCAA basketball tournament will be expanded to 90+ and the Sweet 16 will be paid out more to the schools like the Playoff 12 (eventually 16 playoff IMHO).
Thus Virginia Tech has the football following, even when they are down. The University of Virginia has the basketball following, even when they are down. Same with North Carolina State for football and of course for the University of North Carolina for basketball.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
3y
very attractive for the Sec.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
I feel like UVA and UNC to the Big10 is a great fit. I feel like VT / NCSU is also a great fit.
I don't see why VT and UVA have to be in the same conference, as long as neither gets left behind.
VT verse UVA is an incredible yearly attractive out-of-conference game, so no reason to allocate a conference game to it.
Something about being in different conferences is more appealing
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
sports for the students sake, because they have so many more games/tournaments to travel to and need to go Pro in something besides their sport most if not all the time to make a living. The other college sports that are gaining in popularity in person and on TV, are often the forgotten part of all of this expansion.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
3y
If they could have seen/envisioned the growth of football and subsequent expansion/realignment to grab as big a piece of that pie as possible, smarter people could have decided to separate football from the other sports. Keep every other sport in their 8-10 member regional conferences and allow football to align superregionally and/or nationally on its own. Of course, this would have also required conference commissioners to set their egos aside to do what was best for the schools and their sports/athletes vs doing what was best for the conference, but we would be in a much better place had it been handled that way.
We could still have the ACC, BigEast, B10, SEC, SWC, Big8, and Pac10, etc for all sports but football with 60-100 football teams (depending on how it evolved from there) being a part of a national league and broken up into divisions as needed to ensure maximum revenue and best competition without negatively impacting all the other sports at a school.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
Or if they decide non-revenue players have to be paid. How is all that funded?
I think if they stick with just paying the revenue sports like football and basketball they have a chance, if they expand the NCAA basketball tournament to 90+ teams. Then they could pay the sweet 16 like they play the playoff 12 in football that I think is going to 16. Then they have the money to play for other sports. I do hope they make the regular season basketball champion an automatic bid. That will bring back more significance to the regular season. They could still take the conference tournament champions, because the expanded format. If the same team, wins the regular season and the conference tournament, take the second place regular season team since they’re more games involved.
** Edited by Stech at 6/3/2023, 12:58:14 PM
(In response to this post by BUGGZY)
I loved when we were in the Big East and they were in the ACC.
I also agree that SEC taking VT/NCSt and B1G taking UNC/UVa is a more likely outcome.
The B1G leaving behind all those quality athletic programs and academic schools in the West made it a cherry picking model from now on. Big time conference expansion doesn't give a damn about anybody's in-state politics or "relationships" with other institutions. No strap-hangers are coming along. Just ask Oklahoma State.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/2/2023, 10:40:58 PM
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
3y
16 in the SoCon and 19 in the ACC, and that didn't stop them from playing in any sports. The administrations work closely together and will make sure that the games get scheduled.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
It won't necessarily work, but that will depend upon the circumstances at the time. Both P2 conferences are eager to get a foothold in NC/VA.
As for March Madness, that revenue is not going to grow substantially as long as the NCAA owns the rights. It is so lucrative that the NCAA and the media partners, CBS & Turner extended their contract to 2032 eight years ahead of schedule. They were taking no chances. Basketball revenue will reach its potential when the big conferences break from the NCAA; not before then.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3y
many, schools want to expand it, that gives the NCAA the the money they have been getting, and pays better for those that make the Sweet 16 IMHO. Everybody improves. It would certainly be better for the ACC and B12.
** Edited by Stech at 6/2/2023, 5:18:43 PM
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
I don't see all 4 going to the same conference unless the rubric of
expansion changes. Neither tandem is as big as USC-UCLA. And as a group of 4, the two states aren't as big as California.
I think you could see, say, UNC and UVa going to the B1G and the other two going to the SEC. Or vice versa.
But as long as cable subscribers by state is an issue, I don't see the Big Ten or SEC taking UVa and VT. Would LOVE to be wrong on this though.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
I see the 4 being something the Sec would do. They add 2 large/medium states. Both in the top 12 or 13 in population I think. Both good HS football states. I think the Sec would be happy to lock down the 4. You get very good basketball and potentially football.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
basketball. Yes - football drives the $ - we all know that. But there is a big pot of $ that is called the NCAA basketball tournament and the "big boys" do not like sharing that big pot of $ equally with the Daytons of the world.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
It's the other championships that are funded by the NCAA tourney, especially the DII and DIII sports.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
T
Truthahn
3y
They would be running the CFP now, too, if they had.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
3y
schools determine the bylaws for both their division level and the entire NCAA organization. When DI decided to create the two subdivisions for DI football, it was decided by the NCAA members that the NCAA could only recognize one champion per sport per division. As a result, the NCAA DI football national champion is the champion of the DI-FCS Playoffs and that DI-FBS champion(s) would be decided by private organizations (i.e. polls, BCA, BCS, FBS Playoff, Inc., etc). It also means that the NCAA would run the NCAA FCS Playoffs and award the champion with the standard NCAA team trophy. While the FBS schools would run their own postseason with the blessing of the NCAA (aka a NCAA committee certifies the bowl games and approves the FBS Playoff structure).
If the NCAA wanted to run both DI football subdivisions, then it would require amending the NCAA bylaws which isn't an option because not enough DII and DIII would approve the proposed amendment. The other option would be to re-combine the two DI football subdivisions which is unlikely to pass for a number of reasons (see list below).
1. FBS schools would have to be willing to give up control over their postseason.
2. The DI football postseason would likely be a NCAA ran tournament where every DI conference interested in participating would receive an automatic bid to it which likely means fewer at-large bids for the FBS conferences (really power conferences).
3. The FBS and FCS schools would have to agree on a scholarship limit in football and decide whether the football would be counted as a head count sport (the current status of FBS football) or an equivalent sport (the current status of FCS football).
4. The NCAA would have to deal with a perception problem because the re-combining of the subdivisions would prevent schools, who wish to spend more money and invest more money into their football program, from having the opportunity to pursue "the American Dream" which was the primary reason DI football created the 2 subdivisions in the late 1970s in the first place.
5. Other legal and contractual reasons that I can't think at the moment.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
S
Stech
3y
being underrated for a very long time, maybe longer that anyone else, and maybe more than anyone else on this board. Maybe you missed it, but I have been saying it ad nauseum.
That said, if they can figure out how to expand the NCAA and payout the Sweet 16, it will make a big difference in expansion. The only thing bigger is if revenue sports become employees or even bigger if all sports become employees.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
3y
takes on that option. While I am not disagreeing, slaying, or at least carving up, the golden goose known as March Madness will be no where near as simple as just a split. The remaining 290 or more teams will not go quietly nor will the primary TV partner and as the volume rises politicians and others will get involved. NIL has been a trainwreck from a design, implementation and regulation perspective so far and it will probably resemble a parking lot fender bender relative to the chaos that will ensue when March Madness goes on the chopping block.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
H
hokieZ71
3y
Whichever main conference got those 4 would seal off everything from DC to Charlotte. The size of Florida in population, and growing faster than most places in the US.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
AZ State, he made no mention of Kansas. I can see both the SEC and B1G potentially "fighting" over Kansas just as they would UNC. I also agree that the B1G will add at least 2 more west coast schools (probably Org and Wash) - been saying that from the day they added USC/UCLA.
Will certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out for college football in general and VT in particular.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
3y
I’m always perplexed with adding a school to be able to access the recruiting pool of a state. The top tier schools routinely pick off top Virginia talent, but don’t have a ‘presence’ there. Why would adding Georgia Tech improve B1G recruiting in Georgia? The Ohio State roster has 21 players from Georgia, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Louisiana. Michigan 10, Penn State 12. So the B1G is already there. At this point, TV sets is the ticket. See Rutgers and UCLA/USC, two biggest TV markets in the country. And the Hokies fare better than most ACC and Pac12 schools in this metric.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
GT can’t even access top Georgia talent.
(In response to this post by Alpharetta Hokie)
R
RJHokie
3y
Not the only reason, but it’s a major component. The GT curriculums aren’t as athlete friendly as most P5 schools.
(In response to this post by RoswellGAHokie)
3y
that would have never happened. (1) The B1G had UMD and GT in the bag. GT dropped out at the 11th hour and the B1G had to "scramble" to find a replacement. (2) TV markets dont matter today - it is all about who will be willing to pay for streaming content - and it is not Rutgers fans.
(In response to this post by Alpharetta Hokie)
H
hokieZ71
3y
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
FSU and Clemson too low. Louisville and Stanford too high IMO.
I also think that moves made by some of the schools on that list will depend on what happens with other members on this list.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
P
pine52x
3y
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)