For expansion, the theme is UVA is more desired for the P2 over VT
In several articles. What is driving that? I realize they perform better holistically in sports and have a better academic standing, but wouldn’t think they have a stronger brand.
** Edited by BCVT09 at 12/23/2023, 8:32:20 AM
43 Replies
2y
Located in a major media market in the most populous state, a worldwide brand of academic prowess (clear cut above UVa), and has won something like 90-95% of all Director Cups thus far?
Essentially they have everything in DROVES that the Hoos claim will get them into a P2 resting place, yet just a few months back were on the precipice of homelessness due to an inactive and lifeless football program. Football just drives everything in all of this.
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
H
Hokie 04
2y
In fact, the only reason they were available to the ACC is because a real conference DIDN'T pick them.
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
2y
it over with and form a semi pro league. Something I want no part of, but that is just lil ole me.
(In response to this post by Hokie 04)
H
Hokie 04
2y
Stanford. I'm with you on not wanting part of an officially semipro deal (I say officially because we're already effectively there). Stanford's lack of fanbase is what makes me not want them.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
sport and and education. I'm not interested in a NFL light. I will be disappointed if my school goes to the P2 at this point.
The truck stops vs, the academics. Real college football.
(In response to this post by Hokie 04)
2y
Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas A&M, Oregon, Washington, Rutgers, and Maryland are all state flagship universities. While UCLA isn't the official flagship university in California, it has the medical school that most flagships have and UC-Berkley does not have. As for USC, it's pretty much the Notre Dame of the west coast located in the 2nd largest media market and is the alma mater of many Fox executives.
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
H
Hokie 04
2y
big fan bases. It really is a simple formula, but the ACC has to try to be the smartest guy in the room. Remember when we had to hear about how great the Boston TV market would be? Only thing I want from Boston Market is a rotisserie chicken.
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
2y
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
2y
that valuable. But they didn't. Because they weren't.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
Duplicate post. Sorry. Please delete.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 12/23/2023, 7:47:59 PM
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
Or, they could have just taken USC and Stanford.
Sure, USC wanted UCLA I'm sure. But Flugaur said USC contacted the B1G independent of UCLA. Now I kinda think that's a crock, but it's the party line that the B1G thinks somehow protects them from tampering accusations. But let's just say it's true. The B1G could have just taken Stanford instead. This would have brought the Bay Area market and also prevented having to deal with the UC System hassle.
Bottom line: The B1G didn't think Stanford had the football chops to be in the big time. So much for academics. The B1G had arguably the finest overall university in the country, but they left them to die on the vine. Turrible.
(In response to this post by LonghornHokie)
2y
and this is indeed football driven, I can't imagine a broadcast partner would rather invest in showing football games at UVA, UNC etc. rather than Clemson, VT, FSU or NSCSU. It just doesnt make logical sense to me. If you want the Virginia market for football it has to be VT, not a a team that can't half fill their stadium. Just saying if I was a major TV network, UNC and UVA football would not be high on my wish list. If you are wanting olympic sports then sure UNC and UVA would be there. But what do I know?
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
H
Hokie 04
2y
(just like academics) if it helps make the argument they really wanted to make.
(In response to this post by cvillehokie92)
2
2hhoop3
2y
oversimplified. Football is without question driving the bus with basketball a few seats back and others further back all the way to the rear. However, to say no one cares about other sports is inaccurate and the B1G with wrestling is just one sport that contradicts your premise. People who say they don't care about other sports likely just have a school or conference that never wins in those sports.
(In response to this post by Hokie 04)
S
Stech
2y
SEC wants UNC, because they believe basketball is breaking off from the NCAA and it’s contiguous.
Let it play out though, both Virginia and Virginia Tech and North Carolina and North Carolina State are very tight. 👏👏
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
H
Hokie 04
2y
(In response to this post by Stech)
If that's true about basketball, the SEC should also want Kansas.
Plus, put the Border War back together with Mizzou.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
how big the B1G and SEC decide to go, and where the ACC schools land.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 12/23/2023, 4:23:44 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Texas were announced, and it looked like the B12 was falling apart, but the conference survived, and is in a pretty decent place. While I don't think that there are many schools that will turn down SEC or BIG money, KU may be an exception. They will continue to be a blue blood in basketball, there is just too much money behind that program for it to falter, and there is new life in football, and a new football stadium is being built as we speak.
Look at KU's football history. They actually have a chance to make the playoffs now, and the money differential will not affect their basketball program. Why the heck would they follow Texas.
The BIG is a different story because of the academics. Those research dollars are pretty important for AAU research Universities - so if KU is going to jump ship, it will not be to the SEC.
Lawrence Kansas has too much history as coming into the Union as a Free State. They will not go to the Confederacy (SEC) now, not a chance.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
asked the BIG.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
M
Marooned
2y
Closer to the media markets plus long standing history in the ACC means they are more top of mind in coverage, even when their teams are flagging.
Also there is the AAU membership in their back pocket, which means that they have more appeal to the B1G. Now Tech has come close and I presume it’s a matter of time before we’re AAU as well. Would the B1G bank on that? Hard to tell.
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
In defense of Virginia Tech 🦃
Like you, I don't get the UVa love in the expansionpalooza sweepstakes. Sure, they are tied closely to UNC, the purported prize in all of this. But other than that? The things that others think make UVa a stronger candidate than Tech are not necessarily the qualities that have been driving modern realignment.
This is about football supposedly. So if it comes to home attendance, desirableness for TV, travelling fan base, passion for the sport, history, pedigree, alumni size, and maybe even earnings of alums for advertisers...VT has the edge.
Sure, there is more to expansion than these things. But tell that to Cal and Stanford. UVa has great non-revs and Men's BB, AAU, academic pedigree, and more. These things should count, but do they? If you look at the Big Ten's latest moves, no they don't. Yes, I know that the B1G already had two CA schools, and currently has no VA schools, but couldn't they as easily conclude that VT is the one? And of these qualities, that the Big Ten may pay lip service to, I am quite certain that the SEC doesn't give a damn about them.
I'm not trying to rag on UVa here. They are a fine partner with us in the ACC and a fine school for sure. I'm just saying, when it comes to expansion candidates, that my school has a case.
-Keep winning
-Keep attending games
-Keep watching games on TV
-Go Hokies
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
2y
PSU might want Tech, NC State and Clemson to beef up that region of the B1G’s football. Or who knows, maybe PSU wants the easy route and picks UVa, UNC and GT where they know they’ll win that division 9 out of every 10 years.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
They fit right in with the B10. But I don't see why the SEC would care about any of those things. And UVA is an absolutely horrible culture fit for the SEC.
I'm hoping that most articles/podcasts/blogs just assume UVA is in due to ignorance of the situation on the ground. They just see "University of..." and automatically assume they're the better brand.
** Edited by HokieNoVA at 12/23/2023, 10:46:22 AM
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
2y
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
M
Marooned
2y
Different cultures, but equally at home in the conference.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Way too many outside of our area don't know or care of the difference in UVA and VT.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
Welp. They'll find out if they invite UVa.
Never met an SEC supporter who said he was glad Vandy was in the conference.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
R
ren_hoek
2y
Take 6 from the ACC to get to 24 and establish a footprint all the way down the east coast. UVa, UNC, Duke (let NCSU rot after the Corrigan heel turn), Clemson, GT, and FSU. That allows 4 regional divisions of 6, nice and neat, and stiles a dagger to the heart of ESPN's monopoly of the South.
All of those are AAU except Clemson and FSU, and both of those are working towards that end (Clemson has some blurb about AAU aligned programs on the future vision). Clemson and FSU bring the football chops and ratings while the rest satisfy the academic elitist crowd. As a Clemson grad, I'd prefer the B1G just because ESPN has proven themselves untrustworthy over a period of decades. Full stop, no way I'd choose an ESPN conference if the choice was available.
I'm not an attorney, but that 9 year option where ESPN can walk away is pretty damning to ESPN. That wasn't public knowledge until this week. Is it enough to get the GOR struck down? We'll see. The only thing we know for sure is that a lot of attorneys will make untold amounts of money on this case.
The crazy thing is that ESPN is in austerity mode and may not be in a position for a defensive, preemptive move to cutoff a B1G incursion into the south.
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
Even if UNC and UVa go to the SEC, what you describe should be the B1G's
move. The B1G should take VT either NCState or Duke if UNC and UVa go to the SEC. And to be honest, this might be what's reasonable and best for all parties.
So yeah, I totally agree with you and have been thinking this for quite some time.
WRT to the SEC, they could not possibly move North with same impact as the B1G would be moving South with this plan. If they want to expand their geography, they'd have to go to the Southwest and the Rockies.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
2y
the SEC for reasons other than football.
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
2y
(In response to this post by BCVT09)
2y
will still need to produce enough so that it doesn't hurt the bottom line. I think most people agree that the Big Ten and SEC have current members who really don't help increase their bottom line. Likewise, I think most people would agree if those school had not joined the conference when they did, then it is unlikely they would be a candidate to be an expansion school.
If the bottom line is that important to the Big Ten and SEC now, then it isn't unreasonable to expect that both conferences have 2 different standards to determine if a member is pulling its weight in the conference or harming the conference's bottom line. 1 standard for the founding members/earlier expansion members and 1 standard for the post-CFP expansion members. I say that because if a newer expansion member isn't pulling their weight and potentially harming the conference's bottom line, then the Big Ten and SEC may be more willing to do what the Big East Football Conference did to Temple than a founding member or an earlier expansion member. Now there may come a time when the conferences will have to rethink their position with founding members or earlier expansion members, but that is for another conversation at a later date.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
sports they sponsor and not just football or just on the revenue sports. Plus, the Big Ten may still believe in the education/research value of a member even if it doesn't formally require new members to be AAU members. Now we may think it is hogwash, but the Big Ten needs to believe it enough to publicly sell the idea as a justification why it opted to add Expansion Candidate A instead of Expansion Candidate B.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
all year round for the network.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
I know a Top 10 wrestling team that would look just fine on the BTN.
Shhh. I don't want to say it too loud though.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)