A Lot of Smoke
Is there a fire? There all too often is with these conference expansion issues over the past. FSU has been silent outside of being understandably upset about not making the Playoff as an undefeated team. However I heard Brett Yormark recently said he was open to more expansion by the Big-12 and even mentioned that included a possible merging. Then you have what Pete Thamel publicly said about a week ago about the SEC desiring UNC & Uva.
I hit a Link on a Google Search yesterday that landed me on a Virginia football site with a format just like this one. I immediately felt at least a little bit at home. A lot of traffic on that site and I remained as a lurker about 2 hours reading at least 150 comments in a log thread made on Dec. 8. I read all about the Hokies sadly from a sour angle and even read several posts that mentioned the Hogs, rightfully praising Musselman and also rightfully comparing the Razorbacks to Vandy in football. Don't enjoy reading that but it is the damn truth. The reason I mostly stay off these boards, the truth hurts. I read it even on a Virginia board.
Most of those Cavalier fans were very excited about possibly entering the SEC. I was surprised by that. They feel that UNC is their ticket to the SEC. They say UNC prefers taking them along over the Hokies. They said UNC always opposed VT being in the ACC and still feels that way to this day. One Cavalier fan said he thought the main reason was VT took football recruits from Virginia that UNC routinely got while VT was in the Big East. Anyway several of those Cavalier fans thought the ACC merging with the Big-12 might break that GOR. Whatever, ESPN controls that GOR, ESPN could make the ACC GOR disappear tomorrow. It is purely a money issue, just needing a replacement GOR contract with a sweet deal for ESPN. I see FOX controlling a lot of the Big 12 TV programming as the only sticking point. FOX & ESPN work that out, a BIG 12/ACC merger could take place.
Those Cavalier fans thought FSU & Clemson are B1G bound due to objections by Florida & South Carolina. I agree with them. Florida & Alabama are the big dogs in getting what they want in the SEC. I have seen that for over 30 years. Several on that Cavalier board were stated they were quoting sources deep within the UNC program that said the odds were 50/50 that UNC would be playing football in the SEC by 2026.
All this does not look good for the Hokies. It looks like the Hokie football program went down the river when Frank Beamer retired just like the Razorback boat sank when Frank Broyles died. The Aggies paid $75 Million to ditch Jimbo Fisher after the Aggies stomped Mississippi State while Pittman with a $16 Million buy-out remains at Arkansas after a 4-8 horrible football season. The Razorbacks are VANDY. AD Yurachek needs to hit the road next season right along with Pittman. Yurachek is a bean counting bureaucrat, not an athletic AD. I have seen that crap in Fayetteville for a dozen years. They don't care about football.
117 Replies
2y
The UVA Board and the leadership and VT Board and leadership are very tight, and coordinate together. Frankly, they are charged to lead the State universities together (appointed by the governor, and directed by the general assembly.. rather than average alumni or fan.
Just because some caruthers or Major Jane wahoo have strong opinion, it doesn't carry much to the boards.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
O
ombandit
2y
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
V
VTCALS72
2y
is somewhere around 30-36 teams all with individual contracts like ND has now. I do believe that to the media, conferences and their rules just get in the way.
(In response to this post by ombandit)
2
2hhoop3
2y
flaws. While you may like the 30-36 number it is too small and will likely create pushback from the public and legislators. Much more likely to be in 48-64 range. Your second flaw is huge and involves the media contract you envision. 30 individual contracts like ND is unworkable from the view of both sides. From the schools side their leverage is as a group versus individual entities. From the TV side, 30 individual contracts is a logistical nightmare. 30 separate deals is a nonstarter.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Mine is based on TV and advertisers already living within a 30 team national model in the NFL, NBA and MLB. If they needed more to effectively saturate the national market, What is yours that provides any real examples of anything approaching 60 teams still in the "money division? How do you know 30 contracts would be more unworkable than what we have now? And note, I am not saying there won't be interim steps but it getting rid or a lot of teams wasn't the goal, what has all this been about?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
just because pro models are in 30 they are working up which is far different than the cutting out that must occur at the collegiate level. As far as the individual contracts goes leverage as a group is common sense and anybody that has been in business will tell you it is far more effective and efficient to negotiate and administer a single contract than multiple individual contracts for entities of the same or similar nature and with virtually the same common objective. It is about consolidating the pie but, it is also about avoiding antitrust challenges and regulatory intervention.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
small and avoid the issues you mention particularly if the schools opt to pay all their athletes and not just the 3 revenue sports (football, men's basketball, and women's basketball). What isn't clear is whether the pay-to-play schools would be allowed to continue competing against the other DI schools or be forced to do their own thing because enough schools believe the pay-to-play schools now have a competitive advantage.
I see that debate as having a lot of similarities to the debate on whether a DI school should be allowed to compete at the DII or DIII in a sport. At one time DI schools were allowed to compete in DIII football as a way to reduce cost because they didn't have to offer scholarships in football and potentially offer more scholarships in women's sports to comply with Title IX requirements. Then the DI schools changed the bylaws to put a stop to it because enough schools believed the DI schools had a competitive advantage because the football team had access to the DI resources that weren't available to the DIII schools. As a result of that change to the bylaws, the DI schools made another change to the bylaws as a comprise to allow DI schools to participate in non-scholarship football at the DI-FCS level.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VTCALS72
2y
is really just what is self evident to you. But you are missing my point which is the removal of an intermediary like a conference, union or agent who brings dead weight to the table. All of which rolls back into a minimum number of teams getting a share of the pie.
And btw, many who have worked for government and worked in contracting know the horrors of contracts getting too big with too many hands in the pie and regulations that up the cost with no benefit. No doubt with 5 conferences and 60 some teams, to my common sense 30 one on ones free of the fluff added by redistribution would be more workable than what we have now.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
your problem as you clearly seem to have little clue about real business and apparently even less common sense. Organizing the group to speak as one is not dead weight it is leveraging collective power and your 30 one on ones as more efficient and free of fluff is pure fantasy. We'll see which of us comes closer to reality when it ends and if I am wrong I will own it rather than running away and changing my username.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
better apparel contract if that was leveraged collectively, rather than the individual contract VT negotiated for itself...
** Edited by NokieHokie at 12/20/2023, 9:02:33 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
** Edited by NokieHokie at 12/21/2023, 8:03:23 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
have disappeared over the many years.
(In response to this post by ombandit)
2y
ESPn, FOX, CBS, and don't forget a few streamers out there like Amazon and Apple.
Legally, ESPM can not arbitrarily change the contract or GOR, on that i believe you are correct. to assume that they have no leverage to influence the ACC to change things, is putting your head in the sand.
So - the ACC plays hardball, and the contract is the contract - and the ACC holds FSU's and ESPN'S feet to the fire, because they have the "legal" document. What exactly do you think will happen in the next round of negotiations for the ACC's media contract? We just saw what happens when you don't play ball (PAC).
So, beng "right" may be a battle win for now, but the war is still out there. Seems pretty risky to me to hold FSU's, and anyone else that may have an invite to the P2, to the fire. Are you going to sit back and watch the B12 get an even better contract the next round because you have a contract and the GOR?
I think some are playing with fire here with the future of the ACC. Right now, te ACC has a LOT of leverage if the media companies really want some ACC schools. In 2036, there will be no leverage.
Use the leverage now, and get a contract that is better than the B12's. If the ACC loses some schools, including VT, then so be it - because we are no linger talking about if there will be a change, but when.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 12/19/2023, 8:58:32 AM
** Edited by Big12 guy at 12/19/2023, 9:00:07 AM
(In response to this post by ombandit)
H
hokieZ71
2y
We are already seeing that this is all a bubble. Oregon and Washington are taking peanuts to join the B1G. The Big XII is about to go through 8 years of college football without having the draw of Texas or Oklahoma fanbases driving viewership. Great, you added Houston and UCF and Cincinnati and BYU. Who watches them? Prime will be gone from Colorado in under 3 years and Prime is the Big XII's biggest TV draw. (Not Colorado....Prime)
Who is taking the risk? The ACC is locked in through 2036. The Big XII has to renegotiate before then when both the SEC and B1G will be drawing all of the money from ESPN and Fox's contract renegotiations for their own new deals. ND's NBC deal is up in 2029 so the same happens there. The Big XII will have no leverage in 2031 or 32 or whenever their deal is up either for exactly the same reasons you mention this about the ACC in 2036..
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 12/19/2023, 9:01:57 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
The only reason the B12 didn't disappear like the PAC is they had a lot more teams the P2 did not want. They will at best be a power in whatever lower level of sports the left behinds can come up with.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Any school that goes there will always be close enough to the periphery of major college football to remain a part of it, even though an ever increasingly small part. Their hope (and the ACC equally, I might add) is that media companies see the light and understand that competition and parity among 60-70 teams for a 16 team playoff would be ultra lucrative and quit trying to shove the same 4-6 programs down their viewership's throat every single freaking year. Because if they don't a major portion of college football fans will move to the NFL.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
"close enough to the periphery" to affect anything but a leadership role in molding the "left outs."
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
the addition of the 4 corners, and having the Arizona and colorado markets. Out here in flyover country, a much higher % of the population follows their teams - and bring in the ratings.
It is my contention that if the ACC doesn't play ball, they will end up like the PAC. You are still stuck on the "ACC is a better conference than the B12" - and it's an emotional argument, not a business one.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
The ACC is in a very weak position to negotiate. But being locked into a contract that is probably overpaying schools like Wake Forest, Duke, Syracuse, Boston College, Pitt, GT is a financially lucrative one for half of the ACC. And being in that deal for 13 more years carries a vey low amount of risk for future profits. (You can't start talking about 2036 when 4/5ths of the P4 + ND's contracts expire in 2029-2032).
I was speaking more to the part about the Big XII getting ahead. 4 corner schools? TV network execs are going to get 6 years of ratings data with the 4 corner schools playing football against Kansas, K State, Iowa St, OK St, Baylor, TT, Houston, UCF, WVU, Cincinnati and TCU. They aren't playing Texas or Oklahoma. And they aren't playing USC, UCLA, Oregon or Washington. And if the Big XII sees ratings decline, because Fox and ESPN are hyper promoting their SEC and B1G properties (you KNOW they will), the Big XII and ACC ratings are going to go down. Both conference are at risk of ratings declines that are almost guaranteed to happen.
BUT... at least the ACC has built in ratings bases from brands FSU and Clemson, to a lesser extent Miami (far better brand than anything the Big XII has outside Coach Prime) and also a handful of ACC home games vs ND every single year. All of these are better ratings properties than the Big XII can muster (outside Coach Prime...hope he stays) Add on to that the ACC has the guaranteed contract through 2036. Don't forget, the Pac 12 was getting lowballed which caused its destruction. (You know, those same 4 corner schools that weren't good enough to get P2 invites that were part of the drag on the Pac 12's negotiations...well, they're in the Big XII)
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
comparing the two conferences is an exercise in futility. The ratings, and the time zones carry more weight that you realize. The PAC's problem was all of their schools were in the same time zone (essentially).
It's the ACC;s problem as well. I mean you did add two time zones with the recent additions, but that will only matter if those 3 teams become relevant.
The core of the B12 leftovers get very strong ratings because there is a plethora of schools with the same type of fanbase that VT has. Almost all of them. A couple of the additions, Houston, ASU, Arizona, Colorado, and yes, even my Kansas d not have a history of filling their stadiums for football. # of those however, are basketball brands and blue bloods.
Iowa State is a perfect example. The fill their stadium, get good ratings, and it doesn't matter who they play, or how dismal their record or history is. The B12 is full of those types of large public Universities with extremely loyal fans. The private Universities are in Texas, and that is just a different football world than the privates on the East Coast. They get the ratings, fill their stadiums, and have very loyal fans as well.
I know many on the East Coast don't see it, because there are no blue bloods left in the conference - but it doesn't matter out here. They don't need to play a Texas or OU to fill their stadiums. 1/2 the ACC needs Miami, ND, and FSU to fill theirs.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
V
VTCALS72
2y
That is nothing. We will both be trying to compete with the P2, not for seats in our stadiums but TV slots. What are you going to do when the BIG or SEC or both networks take over the area you are getting now and fewer people watch B12 football in whatever Especially when your favorite team is off any major TV venue and replaced by a Big or SEC game?
As for the ACC, as weak as we are, until somebody actually breaks the GOR, our national teams and their large market presence are still with us. Who knows, we could still be together in the 2030s and the Big 12 seen as Division 2 before the next chapter of realignment occurs..
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
TV does not pay you for filling your stadium. They pay you for eyeballs and TV sets. The number of timezones is not nearly as relevant as the number of homes and people in those time zones. What is the population of Kansas? What do the TV numbers for Big 12 games not involving UT and/or OU reveal about their viewing attraction. The Big 12 got what they got this time to (1)grease the skids on the OU/UT exit and (2)to facilitate the final dismantling of the PAC 12. What they will get in the next renegotiation is subject to a lot of varying debate at this point.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
football game, 80% of the State is tuned in. i think one has to go to old schools SEC to find those kinds of numbers.
Why the B12 got the media deal they got after Texas and OU left? We can take our best guess, and you and i have discussed it - but that doesn't change the fact that they did, indeed, get that contract long before the PAC disintegrated. I can't prove why they got the deal they did, but there is most certainly proof that they did ink that contract without the 4 corners commitment.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
before, how do you know (1) when the contract was actually inked and, more importantly, (2)were the final amounts set or a range based on future occurences((additions possibly from the PAC12)? You have acknowledged there to be no logical reason the Big 12 got a raise losing OU/UT and while you may not want to admit it, the most logical explanation is the raise being dependent on future outcomes making the actual disintegration date of the PAC 12 not as important as the actual occurrence. 100% of the state could be tuned into KU/KState and the impact is still minimal in terms of football ratings.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
with your opinion. Can you disprove anything about that contract, or are you speculating? I'm going with the reports from major press outlets, the B12 official press release, and follow up interviews with AD's.
But, i'll admit, I can not disprove your theory.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
look at all those reports, look at the actual release, read the words, more importantly read any direct quotes from parties that actually verify the specifics or even speak to them. Then ask yourself what you REALLY KNOW? Nothing I said from the first time has changed, yes there is speculation and opinion involved and nothing has come out, at least so far that calls any of that into question. Ask your self two questions. First is it harder to believe the Big 12 would receive an increase or a decrease with OU leaving? Second, what would the most likely/logical reasons be to explain the corresponding increase? You know the answers, you just can't admit it to yourself yet for whatever reason.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
I'll go with the reporting, official release, and interviews with the AD's. That way, I will now be able to say I told you so, as it seems to be something you like to do to others.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
was to actually READ them and think about what they really said. If you choose to still blindly ignore the obvious that is on you.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
and we are apparently arguing over something that we do not disagree with - we just can't prove it one way or the other.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VTCALS72
2y
You are selling the "next to shortest" position.
No doubt some of the B12 have some local and regional pull just like the ACC minus CU, FSU and maybe one or two more. And there may or may not be some sort of regional TV with at least a few $$$ attached. But if this is a world of contestants for procreation, then the B12 is Ferdinand pawing around like he is still Ferdinand the bull after castration comparing himself to what the ACC will be after castration which has not happened yet.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
that is exactly what Utah and ASU thought.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Ultimately the "steers" will find some way to to come together and create something but the split between "national" and "regional" is the split.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
zone. Given that all 15 current ACC are located in the Eastern Time Zone, it may not make a difference that the ACC added 2 more time zones with its latest expansion. At least adding a member from Texas and 2 members from California may be more valuable than having representation in the Central Time Zone and Pacific Time Zone. Basically the specific state is more valuable than the time zone because the state drives the value of the time zone.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
competition. Kinda like Alabama and Mississippi. You get into the Mid Atlantic and north, there is a lot of competition for those eyeballs. The entire state of kansas watches K-state, KU, or both. They tend not to flip to a Big or SEC game unless there are national championship implications. they will watch ND, and tune into a Clemson or FSU game if the playoffs are on the line, but generally speaking, they don't pay much attention to the Mid atlantic out here. That same can be said in your neck of the woods about the B12. (I've lived in both places).
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
people in the Eastern Time Zone will watch the game than the number of people from KS will watch a Kansas or K-State game. At the very least it shows just how much more valued the Eastern Time Zone is compared to the other 5 time zones in the US.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
It wouldn't surprise me if Temple and USF were on the Big XII's radar for a similar reason. Plus, if the Big XII expanded to 18 members, then it could divide up into 3 divisions to make things a little easier for scheduling purposes and possibly cut down on some of the travel cost. Unfortunately, since there are 7 members that could potentially make up the Central/Midwest Division, it is likely that either Iowa State or Texas Tech could end up being the odd member out and placed in another division.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
NY market. The 4 corners was not what Yormark had in mind listening to his rhetoric, but that changed when the new media deal was penned, and the PAC was in trouble.
They still talk about Gonzaga, so it appears they are not against basketball only schools. Get UConn, and a couple of basketball only schools from the Big East would shake things up quite a bit - especially if basketball rights are negotiated separately next go around.
That is where the B12 was headed before the 4 corners, and if the ACC finds a way to stick together, that plan will be dusted off again. If, however, there are ACC schools like Louisville, Cuse, and Pitt available - maybe Duke? then things go a different way.
If the ACC's top football brands are indeed poached by the P2, then the football consolidation is all but done. Do not discount the B12 wanting to position themselves as a P1 in basketball - it may be the only way to compete with the P2.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
why I listed them second before USF. The reason I included USF is because FL is such an important state for recruiting in football that a conference should want to have 2 members in that state. After all there is a reason CA, FL, and TX are known as "The Big Three" in football recruiting.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
G5.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, and UCLA. Now that the Big East that taken a backseat as a power conference because it no longer sponsors football, I'm not sure the basketball ratings are as good as when the conference sponsored football. It is worth noting that the Atlantic 10 men's conference tournament final outdrew the Big East men's conference tournament final last year. "Did you know that has been the case 4 out of the past 6 years?" Given the Big East's value in today's market is probably not close to what it was during the conference's glory years, I do think Temple would be a better addition than any Big East school (not named UConn) that you think the Big XII would want to add as a member. Plus, Temple would give the conference another football member which is a good thing because having an even number of football members makes it a lot easier for scheduling purposes regardless if the conference plays 8 or 9 conference games. Villanova and Georgetown won't provide any help in football because both are content playing DI-FCS football. Villanova is in the CAA and Georgetown is in the limited scholarship Patriot League.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
their basketball winning days. It's like saying Cal won multiple football national championships. Temple couldn't win the the Big east, AAC, nor the MAC in football. It's a non starter.
However, the Phili market is huge. Nova fits in better with Uconn then Temple.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
is "pretty far back" because Temple men's basketball was quite successful during that decade. As far as the football stadium issue goes, Temple was trying to get approval from the city government to build a stadium on campus, but it was being delayed or held up for political reasons. Things got to a point where the Temple BOT was forced to wave the white flag for the time being and settle for continuing to use Lincoln Financial Field.
Temple's football stadium situation is probably still better than UConn's football stadium situation when you look at the distance to campus (approximately 8 miles vs. approximately 24 miles) and travel time (approximately 10-20 minutes vs. approximately 30-45 minutes). I guess if Temple ever decided to not renew its lease with Lincoln Financial Field, then it might be able to enter into a lease with Penn to use Franklin Field. Franklin Field is approximately 4 miles from campus and surface is sprinturf so it can handle the additional usage. It is worth noting that even Temple Stadium, when it existed and Temple used to play there before moving into Veterans Stadium, was located about 10 minutes away from campus.
As far as the possibility of adding Villanova goes, the Wildcats seem to be firmly entrenched and quite happy being members of the Big East. I would be surprised if anyone (outside of UConn) would be interested in leaving the Big East to join another conference. The only reason UConn would entertain the idea is because the move would finally give its football program a home in a FBS conference. If UConn decides to switch back to DI-FCS, like what Idaho decided to do recently, then you probably could cross UConn off as an option at that point.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
close to the ratings generated by Oklahoma and Texas. It will be interesting to see how much the networks value the Big XII now that Oklahoma and Texas are in the SEC because that information could heavily influence the Big XII's and even the ACC's future. If I had to take a guess now, then I would say both the ACC and Big XII are probably on par with each other in terms of value which would make them a distant fourth (yes, I said it for a reason) from the Big Ten and SEC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
teams in the ACC will.
Do you really believe that given the recent moves in the BIG, SEC, PAC, B12 FSU's public posturing, and the mag 7 is going to allow the ACC to go unscathed until 2036? I mean, maybe, as I'm not an attorney, but I just don't think so.
You can say what a lousy conference the B12 is now that texas and OU have left, but Utah? ASU? Arizona? Colorado?
Clearly, the PAC was a much better conference than the B12 - not even a discussion, even with the loss of USCLA. Academically, prestige, football legacy, endowments - I mean, they were clearly the better conference. At the end of the day, it didn't matter.
The ACC currently is a better conference than the B12. At the end of the day, do you really think that will save them?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
leave the conference before June 30, 2036. However, they may not have a new home to go to which could force them to ride this thing out until the current GOR expires. At least I don't believe the Big Ten and SEC are in any hurry to add new members for financial reasons. Also, they may not value the ACC schools as much as people may think because having a member in a state may not be the way future contracts determine a conference's value. It may continue to shift to ratings being the driver which could change how the Big Ten and SEC move forward.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
If enough schools embrace the idea, then they may have to decide whether to remain apart of the existing DI or form their own division within the NCAA. If the pay-to-play schools can remain in their existing conferences, then there may not be a need for them to join the Big Ten or SEC. Likewise, there may not be a need for the Big Ten and SEC to continue expanding its membership. If the pay-to-play form their own division, then there could be a desire to break up into smaller conferences/divisions to make things a little easier for administrative purposes.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Frankly, I will lose interest if that is the direction the rich schools go. Semi pro (pro?) is staring us all in the face, and college football/conferences will never mean the same thing. It will be a sad day if continue on that path, but it's beyond my paygrade to even attempt to fix it.
I'll watch college ball.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
What you expect? Lol. No offense but much of that jibber makes no sense. SEC doesn’t desire the BIG in south.
Didn’t uva.vote for acc expansion? While Unc did not ? Joined at hip if this is true? Hmm The Mag 7 all seemed looking for way out . Then many voted for expansion. Hmmm again.
As Stech has routinely said . Majority may break the GOR. Nothing else .
Btw.. if Arkansas was compared to Vandy football? Shouldn’t these wahoos look in the mirror and compare themselves to temple?
** Edited by MrFantastic! at 12/19/2023, 1:18:03 AM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
Goes back to when Roy Kramer was left hanging out in a Tallahassee hotel. The SEC will make FSU get the B1G to punch their ticket. The B1G will probably be a wash at best for FSU in getting a recruiting advantage. What family wants to never see their kid play except in a home game? Those B1G teams will not get much help on recruiting in the south playing in Tallahassee outside of that Florida panhandle. SEC doesn't want Miami. The Gators don't want them. Now you can answer again with your jibber.
** Edited by WarHog38 at 12/19/2023, 2:30:35 AM
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
2y
Jibber all you desire. Acc isn’t dying. It’s fighting . 13 years from now come back mini Vandy! Lol
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
They have 16 power schools, why take anymore, they already get the largest contract, the biggest exposure, what more do you want,. They have the entire SE from SC through to texas with some of the biggest brands. why take anymore on right now.
Sorta the same with the Big 10,
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
i could see the B12 and ACC merging
It creates a possibly viable P3 situation. The fighting among the teams would be hilarious.
In all seriousness, while it makes sense, the ACC got "doesn't play well with others" on it's kindergarden report card
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
O
obguthr
2y
Consolidating the elite athletic teams, sure. But also consolidating the schlock. It's a very cool collection of Bball schools, but that's not a reason to do it. Most importantly, the so-called "other ivies" will never be in a truck stop conference, never ever.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
T
Truthahn
2y
Better to have four P4 conf champs getting byes. Why eliminate one of them?
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
Generally the ACC schools athletics and academic missions are joined at the hip. They frankly different academically and national reputation than many of the Big 12 schools. (however, with Arizona st and Utah, that changes a little
Fans can debate there is separation... but not the ACC world...
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
What about their olympic sports?
Why would the Sec excite them?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
Said they would go Independent and compete in the Sun Belt in another sport as other SEC east schools were now doing. I stated I was surprised as well. That thread is dated Dec. 8, and pertains to the Pete Thamel pod cast made that day. it is TheSaber.com.
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
That's something to get excited over?
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
S
Stech
2y
Just saying ESPN can make a contract go away when each school signed with the Conference, not ESPN, is general and doesn’t describe how this would happen.
Please describe the legal details so we can all understand.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
I think there are avenues to that ACC/Big 12 merger that could simply be shielded from ever seeing the light of day. It is an avenue well known in the world of business and is a tool used at the highest levels of power. The only question is how bad does ESPN want that merger.
Will the content created be worth the money spent for a hefty enough profit? Just being hypothetical, let's say that Clemson & FSU are lost to ESPN going to B1G & FOX. Lost by ESPN for getting rights from FOX for most all the Big 12 teams. Then the SEC gets 2-4 of the Virginia/North Carolina schools. Will those ACC/Big 12 schools then along with the new games created in the SEC then give ESPN a bigger profit than the present situation? That is the Big Question. If the answer is Yes.
Then you just go to the never seeing the light of day avenue of doing business. You just buy off those needed in the ACC front office.They say everyone has their price and what I have seen in my many years in this old world. I have to believe that is mostly true.Very few men can say hell to millions of bucks. Your merger then gets done as soon as those in the ACC front office feel cozy about bending over publicly for ESPN. They then laugh all the way to the bank. Anybody that thinks business deals are not decided like this are very knieve. It is as old a way of doing business as the hills.
These attorney types here feeling snug about the ACC future had better hope that profit margin for ESPN is analyzed as extremely slim. That may be all that actually saves the ACC.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
are good for Virginia Tech. That said, there are parts to this situation that general answers don’t cut it. The first one is the MATH. Let’s say UVA and UNC go to the SEC alone, they are now making about 40 million media 💵 and let’s say they double it in the SEC, how is that good for ESPN? Do you really think a school that doesn’t fill their stadium and a school that reduced their stadium capacity is going to generate the money difference? Maybe you do, I don’t. So I don’t see the math there, not even close, and I very much like both Universities and do frequent business alliances with UVA. Now you bring basketball into this, maybe so, but not the way basketball money is paid now. If I am an SEC University president, I would be saying, where is the positive math on this. So without that, why would anybody test the legal side of this until you show me positive upside to the SEC or ESPN. My mind can be changed, but I want to see the numbers.
LEGAL side of this, we are in totally uncharted waters. The Texas OU and all the PAC schools were at the end of their GOR. The ACC has 12 YEARS, that’s a monumental difference. We did see I believe 1 year get shaved off of the B12 and PAC schools, but that pales in comparison to 12 years. No one has challenged a 12 year agreement. Therefore, no one can know. The click bait crew are having a heyday over something not comparable, not even close.
ESPN is CUTTING, not spending. Probably to sell the company, happens all the time because companies are sold on a multiplier times earnings.So my business mind goes to how can ESPN cut cost? The only way I can get there in this situation is if they pay less for something. So if ESPN pays some of the schools less or if they let some schools go to another Media partner like Fox, they can cut their cost. The problem is, that dang 12 year GOR that goes to the ACC is not their contract. Sure let FSU go to the B1G (already showed they will pee in their cornflakes as another poster put it, and the have Herbie brag about it) let Clemson go, maybe even let a Virginia and North Carolina school go. That means they don’t have to pay those 4 anymore. That cuts cost, but 12 years on the GOR 🤔, we really don’t know if any school would win or lose that battle in court. University Presidents don’t work on Wall Street or in Vegas, they are risk averse. So I just don’t see it on the SEC President side or the ACC side. Again make a strong argument and I can change my mind.
That said, I will admit Pete Thamel is not a clickbait guy. He has a great track record and he doesn’t put something out there without several sources. Therefore, I have said it before and I will say it again, one potential out clause in the contract is “if” the majority leave. Tarheel an attorney who post here keeps bringing up there cannot be collusion. If you look at the B1G, B12 and ACC acquisitions of the PAC, it was spread out over time. The problem is that once SMU joins on July 1, it’s going to be very tough to get a majority to leave the ACC. So the only hole I see is over the next 6 months the majority leave the
ACC piecemeal, and as I have said, that’s possible, but man would that will be a crazy 6 months.(Cick bait heaven ) If they could pull that off and shed 4 schools to Fox, and with the majority leaving renegotiate the ACC media agreement. Yep that would be the BIG BANG!!
However, just a couple of schools leaving, I don’t see the MATH, I don’t see the LEGAL angle, and I don’t see the University Presidents taking the RISK. Again, make a strong argument on each of these and I can change my mind, but generalities in any of those areas, I am not buying. As they say the devil is in the DETAILS, so let me see those dang DETAILS on each.
** Edited by Stech at 12/19/2023, 10:50:47 AM
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
I do hope the best for Virginia Tech as this all plays out which will most likely happen in the years ahead. I don't know exactly how much the scenario I laid out in my previous post will financially benefit ESP?. That is the Big Question in all this.
My point is big money can make anything go away in a legal sense. I cannot get political here. I know from my past here. However just analyze the always absolutely crazy national & world events. It is all just about money.
If ESPN feels it is in their best financial interest to make that ACC GOR disappear. That GOR will disappear and it will not take 10 or 13 years. ESPN will just change the attitude of those few men pulling the strings in the ACC front office. The ACC Commissioner and his several top aids will the sell that ACC/Big 12 Merger to the Pitts & Wakes like that merger is the best new thing since apple pie. Pitt & Wake and their reluctant cohorts will be told by the ACC Commish that big income boosts are dead ahead with that merger. I think a ACC/Big 12 merger that ESPN & the ACC agreed on would nullify that GOR. How could a GOR still exist for the ACC when the ACC does not technically exist any longer? The ACC would be just like the old SWC when the Big 12 formed. Houston, SMU, Rice & TCU were left high & dry and had to fend for themselves. I think some as Wake & Duke might be left that way as well. That possibility will never be even hinted to until that axe falls.
Of course this event will transpire over many months if not a couple of years. It was all planned out well in advance but will be made public slowly so it appears to be somewhat naturally occurring as just a reactionary happening.
I think FSU & Clemson go to the B1G, giving them 20 members. The SEC could very well take UVa, Vt, UNC & NC State to give the SEC a comparable 20 members. I think it is possible that UVa would insist on the inclusion of Tech, that was mentioned by several on that Cavalier board I visited a few days ago. That all would leave about 27 members in the Big 12 after that merger. Does the Big 12 want to be that big? I don't know. Some members could be left out to make 24 or 22.
The question is does ESPN desire this from a financial standpoint? That is the only question. However college football has been constantly moving towards this possibly dystopian set-up for over 30 years.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
June 30th, but in a piecemeal way. Let’s just say it’s Virginia and North Carolina first to the SEC, and then I believe next would be FSU and Clemson to the B1G, followed by either Miami and Notre Dame or ND can still have tier 1 access to the playoff, it could be another school or they keep waiting for ND to get to lose access to tier 1. With no divisions it doesn’t have to be an even number. Then before or after that, Virginia Tech and NC State leave. If ND leaves, you have a majority, but if they don’t leave, I see Louisville to the B12, that might happen anyway, because they are better fit for the B12 than the ACC. Especially what would be left of the ACC. So I think you and I are getting close to what could happen. On the other hand, I think the ACC stays, but the ACC stands for Academic Conference of Champions. Phillips said, getting Stanford, Cal and SMU saves the ACC if teams leave. ND was also the most involved school in getting those 3. Thus “if” the majority leave, I see the Academic Conference of Champions grabbing USF to still be in Florida, Tulane to pick up Louisiana, UConn and Rice to pick up Houston. If they want to go further, they might also get Air Force, Army, and Navy, but don’t get hung up on those three because I know it can get complicated with them. Get the bigger point that they want top tier Division 1 Academic Schools,
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
Those conference names are a Brand unto themselves and have recognition value in a nostalgic sense for the future. I hear Washington State & Oregon State have plans to reform another conference under that Pacific 12 name. Remains of the ACC after all this plays out could definitely go the same route.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
8-9 schools. Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, UConn, Duke, Wake, Stanford, Cal SMU and 5 games with ND, plus ND’s other sports. I will put Louisville in the B12 with the Mag 7 going to the P2 in some shape or form. Then add UConn, USF, Tulane and Rice, and you are way better than the New PAC IMHO. Bigger markets, top tier Academics, and some of those schools will have a decent chance every now and then to make the 12 team playoff. Yeah I would take that over the New PAC, especially in basketball.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
So there is no way in heck they're going to pay more to either conference to get them to join into a "mega second tier conference." ESPN would stop funding both conferences before they decide to pay them more.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
mega second tier conference.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
ESPN and Disney are in the red and likely going to default in rime on
Current deals. Believe what you want but they will be lucky to survive as is by 2036
(In response to this post by Stech)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
ESPN, ESPN2, and ABC at the same time. The same game on all three channels? Are they so broke they can't air other games, shows?
(In response to this post by anotherdamnyankeehokie)
2y
Do you have a legal degree? That Great of Rights literally amounts to ESPN TV rights being paid to the ACC front office instead of the individual ACC schools. Is ESPN going to pay the ACC front office for a ACC Members (FSU) no longer in the ACC conference? If FSU bought their way out of the ACC. That would be the exact issue. I would guess the ACC front office would need to take ESPN to court for that money. Would the ACC front office win that case? I guess that is the question. Or maybe you think ESPN will just absorb that FSU loss?
I think ESPN is calling all the shots in this. Not the ACC front office in North Carolina. You can think whatever you like. However if ESPN or FOX had come through with a TV contract for the Pac-12 just comparable to the one just given to the Big-12. The PAC 12 would be playing football in the future with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah & Colorado. Those YouTube Big-12 people want to give all the credit to Brett Yormark for getting those 4-Corners schools. Yormark is their hero when it was all laid in his lap by the media giants. I guess you are like those Big-12 people. You think those Conference Commissioners are still in control.
(In response to this post by Stech)
D
daveinop
2y
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
S
Stech
2y
The B12 GOR was expiring, so sighting that is totally irrelevant. You just keep bringing up the fact that ESPN pays the Conference, but that has nothing to do with the legal ramifications. Why would the ACC want to give up the estimated 100 million dollars in penalties, plus the media money for 10+ years that conservatively be 500 million per school? Why would ESPN want to pay UNC and UVA double what they are paying them now? They are struggling financially as it is, I just don’t get the math or the legal side of this.
PS I am not a lawyer, but I have had to deal with contracts for decades, much of it in the sports marketing world. Therefore the only conceivable way I can see the GOR ending is if the majority leave. That’s high risk, and most if not all University Presidents are risk averse. Thus it’s possible, but not probable.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
Perhaps FSU will be the only school to pull the plug on the ACC and the ACC will soldier on another 10 years. ESPN will just absorb that FSU loss with the ACCTN. However about everyone I ever see discussing this on YouTube says FSU will be followed by other ACC schools. Maybe FSU will never be followed by Clemson, UNC or anybody for 10 years. However as time passes. Those penalties that the ACC front office can levy will be yearly decreased. Court cases may be the outcome in a lot less than 10 years the way the Haves are evermore financially out pacing the Have Nots in college football.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
maybe, it’s piecemeal between now and when SMU joins on July 1 to keep it from being collusion. That’s pretty much what the B1G did, they took USC and UCLA, then later took Oregon and Washington, with the B12 jumping in there too. No collusion case.
If I were the B1G and saw UNC and UVA go to the SEC alone, the first thing I would do is grab the better football programs in Virginia Tech and North Carolina State. That’s where the money is! That would neutralize the states, maybe even be a win for the B1G since it’s about the football money. The SEC will not like that, and could easily pull a counter move by inviting them too. There are going to be a lot of moves on the table, no matter what happens.
I personally hope UNC, UVA, Virginia Tech and North Carolina State go to the same P2, and the SEC would be my preference because they all would have more natural rivalries. However, the biggest thing is for all 4 to be in the P2, and that could end up happening in a lot of ways, and exactly when, IMHO is the biggest unknown.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the miserable little Hog Boy is just trolling to see if he can drum up some company in the sty.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
Does a lousy job but where is he without his Pylon buddy from Pennsylvania. Obviously doesn't know actually trolling when he see it. I feel bad for VT. I wish VT all the luck in the world. My nephews are Hokie fans.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
Don't underestimate Virginia Tech...
Tech roamed through the football desert for over 50 years before joining the ACC even though the Big East Football Conference was better from top to bottom than the ACC in the 1990's and early 2000's, IMHO. Take FSU out of the ACC and the Big East was much better.
If conference realignment is about football, than Tech is the best football brand in the state of Virginia. Just compare Lane Stadium crowds to Scott Stadium crowds. UVA's fan support during their rivalry game with Tech was downright embarrassing. Even when Tech struggled badly in 2022, most of the seats at Lane were filled. I think Tech would be a positive addition for either the Big 10 or SEC. Both conferences would be foolish to not take Tech or NC State. The best football brands in the ACC are in order: Clemson, FSU, VA Tech, NC State and Miami in a distance 5th due to mediocre fan support. Louisville may even be ahead of Miami.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
FSU was one of the top teams in the country year in / year out. Duke and Wake were bad.
Virginia, UNC, GT, Clemson, NCSU all had some good to very good teams in that span.
Miami was not competing for national titles during that timeframe. VT had one excellent team and some other very good ones. Temple and Rutgers were terrible. WVU, BC, Syracuse, Pitt all had some good teams.
I’d say it’s a push with a slight edge to ACC since FSU picked up 2 national titles.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
The Big East was a great venue for us to build into a competitive program, but there weren't any conference members who were truly in a position to challenge for a national championship from the time that Miami claimed it in 1991 through our Michael Vick-led team in 1999. In fact, once round robin play began in the BE a few teams (us, Syracuse, and WVU) were able to close the gap with Miami fairly quickly.
On the other hand.... The ACC was very much Florida State and everybody else from 1992 through 1999 -- the Seminoles only lost 2 ACC games in that entire span and most of their wins weren't competitive. But FSU was rarely the best team in their state during that decade, as both Miami and Florida had a tendency to knock them off.
On a national level, the plain truth is that nobody was really paying much attention to either conference beyond FSU and Miami -- and the 'Canes struggled quite a bit due to the effects of probation for a good portion of that time.
The 1993 national title is an interesting case. If Notre Dame hadn't inexplicably lost to Boston College a week after the "Game of the Century" against the 'Noles on November 20, 1993 then Florida State wouldn't have even had a shot at beating Nebraska for the title that year. 30 years is a long time, but the current gnashing of teeth in Tallahassee seems a bit like karma. Florida State got the benefit of another team essentially losing at the wrong time back then.
(In response to this post by Brother Griswold)
Top to bottom it was
(In response to this post by Brother Griswold)
Miami won a national title in 2001.
Syracuse, WVU, Pitt, Miami and Tech were all good most years. BEFC was much more fun to watch. A better football product than the ACC. Rutgers and Temple sucked but BC even had some good teams. FSU ruled the ACC. As they used to say about the ACC, "Florida State and the 8 dwarfs. UVA had some good teams but Tech was still 7-4 vs. them as BEFC members but 18-1 vs them as members of the ACC.
(In response to this post by Brother Griswold)
2y
since Miami did pick up a national title in 2001 and FSU started to fade a bit starting in 2000.
FSU lost a total of 8 regular season games in the 8 seasons from 1992-1999 (they joined league in 1992). UF 3x, Miami 2x, ND 1x, UVa 1x, NC State 1x. FSU was clearly better than the Big East's best team of that time (Miami early or VT by 1999). Highly probable any Big East team not named Miami would have suffered the same fate as the the ACC teams of that era (meaning the rest of the league other than Miami would have been fortunate to pick up 2 wins against FSU).
The ACC had some very good teams in that same timeframe and had a winning record in head to head vs. Big East from 1991-1999. See link I found: https://mcubed.net/ncaaf/tvc/bigeast/acc.shtml?expand_art...
I could be counting wrong but it looks like from 1991-1999 ACC was 33-27-1 vs. Big East.
VT vs. UVa was a push in the 1990s.
I'd disagree that Big East was more fun to watch - but that is a totally objective argument.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
It was years ago but I know the Hokies as the football power in Virginia. I still see them that way.I would choose the Hokies as the Virginia representative in the SEC. However I cannot control that anymore than Pittman still coaching the Hogs.
I think Greg Sankey is more of a conservative SEC commissioner than Mike Slive or Roy Kramer. I mean Sankey is going to analyze an SEC add to the extreme. I believe Sankey when he said both Texas & Oklahoma initially approached the SEC requesting admission. However Sankey was very secretive about the two new adds for about six months. A long time to keep the wraps on something like that. Texas A&M did finally find out about a week before it was intended to be publicly announced. Sankey is just a commissioner that is very hard to figure yea or nay. Sankey may want FSU, Clemson, VT, Virginia, UNC & NCST and I don't believe a soul would actually know it. The SEC wanting UNC & Virginia that Pete Tramel reported was most likely never uttered by Sankey himself. Sankey just would never show his hand like that.
It doesn't take much research to find out the better college football program in Virginia. Virginia Tech should be the logical choice for the SEC under all the guidelines any commissioner would use.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
ESPN only owns the media rights contract with the ACC. The GOR is completely an internal ACC contract that connects the schools together and ties penalties to giving up part of that media deal.
And for my opinion, I think unc and uva are far more likely to go to the BIG.
Also there is no love for UNC with VT fans. So if they don’t like us then it is a mutual feeling.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
D
daveinop
2y
that the purpose of the GOR is to support the television contract; and the first GOR (https://www.reddit.com/r/fsusports/comments/11d0vht/2013_... specifically referenced ESPN. While we haven't seen the 2016 amendment, the GOR extension was reported to be a requirement by ESPN for them to agree to create the ACCN.
If either party were to break that contract, the GOR would almost certainly be revisited, if not tossed altogether. Remember, one of the reasons Cal, Stanford, and SMU were added was as insurance that the ACC would have enough teams to fulfill the contract; and one reason why UNC, Clemson, and FSU voted against adding them.
The ACC won't beak the contract; but ESPN is a bit less certain. This is the kind of thing that might get scrutiny should ESPN be sold in whole or in part. But I wouldn't hold my breath; the ACCN is a moneymaker (unlike LHN whose dissolution partially financed the Texas/OU deal) and I don't think adding teams to the SEC would increase revenue enough (if at all) to offset that. And adding marquis teams to the B1G certainly does nothing for ESPN.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
Not many on the internet understands that.
bottomline, GOR is owned by the ACC.. and they hold it until 2036 and they are not releasing it.....
actually, this is the dilemma for 50 years, UVA has no problem with VT (nor NC State) its UNC. UNC says you want me, and we have not problem with UVA and NC State but no VT. (they thought they had us boxed in 1950 with the acc was formed, then again VT was voted down in 1978 and they thought they had us boxed in the last time we finally got in, but VT and the State out flanked them. and they still are pulling the same crap.
reason VT really hits to their core recruiting base....
However, that's the fanbase, at the leadership level where their is no emotion, I really think UNC NC state VA and VT are wired very tight together. Its huge strength together, for the 4 major schools in the mid atlantic (that both conferences dont have any roots. Staying together can deflect the Power 2. Lets see how bad they want the Mid Atlantic. (and For the SEC FSU and Clemson and Miami really dont move the dial. they have the market.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
On everything I have ever been associated with from growing up in my father's house to every job I ever worked. The one who pays the bills is the boss.
It is a long thread on The Saber.com, dated Dec. 8. I just went there and am longed in as here. It is obviously a sister board to this board. The support on that thread is very lopsided towards the SEC. Whatever that is worth. Virginia is clearly a southern state. The B1G is not southern by any means. I don't like FSU. I hope they go B1G. The biggest mistake with that scheduling that could ever be imagined. Games in Eugene,Seattle,Minneapolis, Madison & East Lansing. Good luck getting fans to travel to those places.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
ACC content to show on their network. As long as the ACC is providing the content promised to ESPN, then ESPN is required to pay the ACC. That doesn't put ESPN in control. It makes them a customer.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
How in the real world does a media giant yearly throw hundreds of millions of dollars into a small office of conference suited administrators and not be in total control? I think you have the big time business world confused with working at mom's & pop's grocery.
(In response to this post by HokieToph)
No he's not, you need to understand who legally owns the content
Do you think Bruce Springsteen cowers to his record company? Do you think Michael Jackson did? No, they didn't.
Think about it...if you own the content, you own the content. ESPN is a channel for distribution....just like NBC and FOX are. ESPN pays for the content and then makes money from subscribers and advertising.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
Doubt there are many millionaire artistic types like that in the ACC front office. I am just saying when you pour hundreds of millions into anything you will create nothing but Yes men. If not, throw a few million right his way. That will work virtually always. It is that simple in this old world. Big money rules everything.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
This is contract language and so it has to be very specific in how it gets discussed.
I know it might seem annoying to pick on phrases and words like this, but it unfortunately matters quite a bit when it comes to contracts. That’s one thing that I really enjoy about this board. We have a wide variety of people, some with extensive contract and/or legal backgrounds. So we get some quality insights and it holds all of us to a higher standard when discussing.
Sure we like to speculate also because it’s fun and hopefully one day some of us can say we were right and saw it coming :)
I have no clue on the quality of the saber’s version of this board. But we have a good crew here.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
If it was up to UNC, the ACC would only stretch from GT to UMd. If that.
I don't think they wanted to go into the Northeast. I don't think they wanted football-first teams like FSU, Miami, and VT in the South. And yes, I think UVa is ahead of us in the realignment sweepstakes because of their connection to UNC. Otherwise, VT has as much to offer as an expansion candidate than UVa. It's just a matter of preference.
UVa is ahead of NCState and Duke to couple with UNC as an expansion tandem.
Just one man's opinion.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...around 1980. They had "black balled" VT whenever expansion was on the table, until the ACC had gained enough schools to cancel out their "no" vote. We expended a lot of political capital to finally join the ACC. Although rumors have mentioned the SEC was interested in adding us when they brought in aTm, but that was right after we had fought to get into the ACC, so there was no chance we would have gone at that time. If the SEC had only come calling a year or two earlier...
Who knows how the P2 will expand down the road. No ACC school will be jumping ship any time soon unless they have a massive amount of cash to carry them through the loss of GOR for the next 10ish years.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
I have heard FSU has even approached JP Morgan looking for big loans to get out of the ACC. 10 years is probably the right time frame with that GOR for UNC or Uva to leave the ACC individually. However look how the ACC will change if FSU should leave? How much would that devalue the ACC Network that belongs to ESPN? FSU would be lost to ESPN and would be on FOX with the B1G. How much revenue would that cost Disney & ESPN?
Maybe it could lead to ESPN be willing to broker a Big 12/ACC merger deal with FOX while they still have FSU as stock in that deal. That could make all this happen in the next several years.
I also noted one comment in that thread yesterday on the Cavalier board. He said that UNC had always been the defining member of the ACC that would always work towards the best interest of the ACC. When UNC voted with FSU & Clemson against expansion with Stanford, Cal & SMU. It abruptly vividly showed a paradigm shift in UNC's attitude towards the ACC. UNC is now working towards their own best interest as of that vote onward.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Losing their GOR for 10 years will be a bit of a financial burden...to say the least.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
Show me the money and leave
I for one am tired of their drama.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2003. That was the best chance for us to get into the SEC. When the ACC
initially announced Miami, Syracuse, and BC to the ACC.
Not sure what calls were made or not made. But I was BEGGING for something to happen in that moment between the SEC and VT. Either way, what a blown opportunity for both sides. At the time, I just wanted to get into it because I loved Southeastern football an wanted it to be the home of football-loving VT. But in retrospect, now that it looks like we could be left out of the P2 in the next decade or so, the failure to press this home on VT's side was a massive blunder.
I would have rather gotten into the SEC on our own merit, than depend on state politics and threats of lawsuits to force our way into the ACC with a plurality of teams that didn't want us.
BTW, I joined TSL in 2003 after being a reader for a while during this whole ACC debacle. I wanted the SEC to invite VT and WVU. Would have been perfect for all parties. What could have been!
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
Officially the SEC doesn't invite members to join. Schools have to apply to the conference. But there are plenty of rumors suggesting that Virginia Tech was encouraged to apply in 2012 when Texas A&M joined the league -- and we arguably would have made a much better fit for the East division at that time than Missouri.
The SEC wasn't an option at all in 2003. We were darn lucky to get into the ACC -- and probably owe that to the deep philosophical objection to expansion held by Duke and UNC. If either of them had wavered or flipped, then Syracuse and BC would have made it ahead of us.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2012 was a PR and political non-starter. VT wasn't leaving the ACC after
what was done for them by UVa and the commonwealth. We weren't going to do anything that hurt UVa's existing conference.
that. In 2003, we could have more easily left the Big East without concern for anyone else. And I'm not sure we were less attractive as a candidate in 2003 than we were in 2012 or even today. Only difference was that A&M was joining, and #14 was in play.
Today, however. I think we could bolt the ACC (if we could afford it) without regard to UVa. We did them and the ACC a favor by not pursuing the SEC in 2012. I don't think we are free of obligation moving forward (GOR and TV contract not withstanding).
I am still curious after two decades if any contacts were made between VT administration and SEC brass between the time MIA, SU and BC were first announced to the ACC, and VT getting into the ACC.
(In response to this post by Hokie Fiji)
R
RJHokie
2y
I remember Jim Weaver talking about/discussing the SEC in a few of our Hokie Club presidents/leadership meetings at that time (2012). He wasn’t really in favor of it, but I believe he was just toeing the “company” line.
(In response to this post by Hokie Fiji)
2003... the last UVA win over Tech Football until 2019...
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
R
RiverVT
2y
Refuses to bend over to UNC at any time.
We know who they are and what they think of VT . Move on with the UNC nostalgia and continue to compete .
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)