Dwayne Yancey (Cardinal News) on why VT-SEC and UVA-B1G makes sense.
At first, I thought this was another shallow look at conference realignment, but then he took a different tack about eight paragraphs in. Interesting stuff.
I'm not done reading it yet but will do so now.
132 Replies
2y
The schools which will bring the most future financial value to the conference will be factors 1a, 1b & 1c. I’m not sure UVa moves the needle that much in that regard for the B1G or the SEC. And I think that’s a big (but not the only) reason why nobody has made a move. Nobody in the ACC (especially UVa and even UNC, FSU & Clemson) is a no-brainer option - for a variety of differing reasons.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
V
Va AandM
2y
Ronald H. Coase, a renowned British Economist
The report Yancey uses regards admissions, enrollment, military vet support, retention and grad rates, etc.
How this applies to sports conferences…?
Here’s the selected peers VT chose for 2022
Cornell University (Ithaca, NY)
Iowa State University (Ames, IA)
Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI)
North Carolina State University at Raleigh (Raleigh, NC)
Ohio State University-Main Campus (Columbus, OH)
Purdue University-Main Campus (West Lafayette, IN)
Rutgers University-New Brunswick (New Brunswick, NJ)
Stony Brook University (Stony Brook, NY)
Texas A & M University-College Station (College Station, TX)
The Pennsylvania State University (University Park, PA)
The University of Texas at Austin (Austin, TX)
University at Buffalo (Buffalo, NY)
University of California-Berkeley (Berkeley, CA)
University of California-Davis (Davis, CA)
University of Colorado Boulder (Boulder, CO)
University of Florida (Gainesville, FL)
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (Champaign, IL)
University of Maryland-College Park (College Park, MD)
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ann Arbor, MI)
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN)
University of Missouri-Columbia (Columbia, MO)
University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus (Pittsburgh, PA)
University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA)
University of Washington-Seattle Campus (Seattle, WA)
University of Wisconsin-Madison (Madison, WI)
I’m linking to the full report
** Edited by Va AandM at 6/12/2024, 5:05:30 PM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
W
WarHog38
2y
An interesting read from a different angle that I think adds definite substance to the debate. Academics & cultural will figure into the SEC expansion decisions, I have heard all the SEC Commissioners in the past mention both those qualities when discussing future expansion candidate possibilities.
I noticed Virginia Tech had a lot more respect for the academics of B1G schools than was reciprocated in return by B1G schools towards Virginia Tech. I think that should be noted by all. As I said, I think this article has a cultural element as well.
I have always said I feel the best outcome for Virginia Tech would be if Virginia went B1G. I have got in trouble here analyzing that. I think this article analyzes that pretty well.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
I
I85Hokie
2y
UVA has that sort of "genteel southern" atmosphere that SEC schools have. Case in point, I remember in the day we liked to make fun of UVA for students wearing ties to football games. You know who else does that? Many, if not most SEC schools. I think the culture of VT is more like a Midwestern land grant school, such as Purdue or Michigan State, and much less like that of say, Auburn or Tennessee.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
who cares really for conference affiliation?
I think you could actually argue that clash of culture is better...it creates/supports rivalries that draw eyeballs. A lot of rivalries are the big land grant vs. the more genteel school, even if it's not the south (like MSU/Michigan)
Who do we most love to hate in football? UVa, Miami, UNC, WVU...only one is a land grant
These deals are being done to draw media money, not to create a pleasant and unified atmosphere for a cocktail party or a tailgate.
(In response to this post by I85Hokie)
2y
....over UVa. I'd take both. But, Tech definitely.
No one from any B1G school I have talked to about realignment want Clemson or F$U in the B1G.
But, UVa, Tech and UNC and seem to be the alum/fan faves if we are going to expand into the Southeast. Of course, adding Notre Dame in with those 3.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
I moved to Charlotte in ‘08 and now it is over-run with people from OH, MI, MN, IA, PA, MD, DC, NY. To a detriment.
I just recently moved to Charleston SC (“Low Country” SC) vs “Upstate” SC (Charlotte/Columbia).
Native SC Charlestonians have a real Love/Hate for “Northerners” and for whatever reason specifically “Ohioans”. They hate them with a passion, and I’m talking just the past 2-3 years (Covid). But they love their property values (No More Apartments in MY great neighborhood!!!! Keep the Northerners out!!!)
In Charleston, SC…I see almost as many OSU/PSU/Mich/Minn/Wisc/Mich St. gear as I do Clemson/USC-E and that is not an exaggeration. Still plenty of VT and UVA and UNC but not as much as B1G as a whole. And def no FSU or Miami or any other SEC or ACC school.
Yeah, Detroit and Flint and State College and Columbus suck. Blacksburg does not, despite popular belief.
Charlotte and Charleston are amazing. Work from home, live at the best beaches, come here, take over opponents stadiums for cheap (Panthers, Hornets). It’s so cheap down there.
Blacksburg is a 2.5 hour drive from Charlotte and a 5+ from Charleston to witness the greatest entrance in all of sports (Lane).
Only problem is you won’t get cheap tickets (Duke, Wake) or takeover the stadium…and you will likely LOSE…yet still have the time of your life (Blacksburg).
B1G for the win. It just works better. Let UVA join Vandy and Ole Miss in the equally great SEC. They will bring the academics way up and keep football/basketball great in the richest area in America.
UVA to SEC and VT to B1G makes the most sense.
UNC with UVA and VT with NC St for the same exact reasons. Ohioans to Raleigh/RTP is gigantic right now.
Demographics will decide it all, make it happen. Nobody else in the ACC (including Miami and Clemson) are nearly as valuable as the states of VA and NC in demographics and fit. It’s not the same as it was last time, it’s best we did the previous time. Same states, different conferences. Big money. For the win. You’re welcome ESPN and FOX. Just send me a dollar for the help.
VT BABY!!!
** Edited by Hardcore_Hokie at 6/12/2024, 10:02:54 PM
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
Can't see the B1G taking both UVa and VT. And our vision moving forward.
In fact, I don't think the SEC want to do that either. But they would be more likely to.
I think our best bet to get into the B1G is for UVa (along with UNC) to go to the SEC. Then, the B1G would want to compete in the mid-Atlantic and perhaps take us. We are good enough in football and academics to be in the Big Ten.
BTW, I think VT should be low-key campaigning to get into the B1G on their own merits. Yeah, yeah, I know the party line in the state is that we are a package deal. But if we want to be real and "bet on ourselves" so to speak, I think we should be angling to go to the Big Ten. And as far as that goes, I think the more the Big Ten is interested in us, the more the SEC will be interested in us.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/12/2024, 3:16:01 AM
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
i don't think B1G alumni will like us for one big reason
Blacksburg is a pain to get to. Most of them are going to be working in major metropolitan areas in the NorthEast(i guess) and so getting to the Burg means a lonnnggggg drive or a long drive from IAD or CLT.
The SEC fans drive to games a lot more I bet, so it won't matter to them
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
2y
Charlotte NC and Charleston SC are absolutely filled with OSU/PSU/Mich alums. Easy drive to Blacksburg.
VT BABY!!!
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
We don't need Big Ten fans to fill our own stadium.
If we get invited t o the Big Ten, we could expand Lane to 72k and still fill our stadium with mostly our own fans without there being a "hostile takeover" (see: Maryland).
Also, the B1G just took Oregon. I imagine Eugene is hard to get to. But never been.
BTW, I know quite a few Big Ten fans that have Blacksburg as a bucket list place.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/12/2024, 2:59:44 AM
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
Penn State caused the local airport to be expanded solely to satisfy the Big Ten. Penn State does not have nearly the same problem Tech has with long distance travel (where we have to use Greensboro as a return landing spot if we do a flight out west.
Where one used to travel to State College on two lane roads, now there is a major highway that is far less crowded than I-81. Penn State was once not easy to reach, but that has changed dramatically in the past 30 years.
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
2y
Coming from someone in Western MD. I can hit I-81 South and be at JMU in 2 hours, Blacksburg in 4 hours. Charlotte in 6 hours.
Blacksburg is easy driving distance to most of the nation’s wealthiest residents.
NOVA, Charlotte, DC, Baltimore, Richmond, VA Beach/757, even ATL, Columbia, Charleston, and Raleigh.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/13/2024, 3:21:06 PM
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2y
…to drive to State College, PA. That drive is horrendus. Blacksburg is much more reasonable, whether you like 81 or not.
VT BABY!!!
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
1y
I go to the “Western Maryland library” in Frederick County and Washington County many times every month, but sure you win.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
R
RJHokie
2y
at Bedford on I76 W. But all routes might be a ***** on game day.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2y
It's an incredibly easy drive and far better than traversing I-81.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
Even with the upgrades in State College, I find Blacksburg much easier to get to than Happy Valley. I don't take 81 when I come down to Blacksburg. From Columbus, it's much easier to get into B'burg on 460 from the WV Tpk. Rarely any traffic if I am coming in for a game at Lane.
Yes - the upgraded airport in HV is nice. But, I don't use it.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
That coming from the west isn’t much of challenge for you isn’t particularly relevant to the question of which is generally easier or harder to get to for the average fan of each.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/12/2024, 8:19:49 PM
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
2y
Living in West Virginia most of my life and in the Pittsburgh area more recently, it is a relief to not have to fight the traffic on I-81.
But there is not a single Big Ten program that would use Route 460 for travel purposes, with the possible exception of some non-revenue programs at Ohio State. That's a big reason why the ACC has been ideal for Virginia Tech and why the SEC would be far more manageable for competition than the Big Ten.
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
2y
Probably close to half the Big Ten isn’t an unreasonable drive to Blacksburg anyway. By that I mean 8ish hours.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
here are the numbers according to ChatGPT
The top ten cities where B1G alumni reside today, along with the number of alumni in each city, are:
Chicago, IL - 241,242
New York, NY - 216,065
Washington, D.C. - 94,355
Los Angeles, CA - 87,256
San Francisco, CA - 80,749
Columbus, OH - 79,465
Philadelphia, PA - 78,133
Indianapolis, IN - 67,890
Boston, MA - 65,342
Detroit, MI - 63,479
I think you have 3 reasonable drives in there. Columbus OH is only 5.5 hours,which surprised the hell out of me. NYC is about 8 but that's a rough 8 imho
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
wonder if that 79K number for Columbus is correct. That seems low.
You can get to Ann Arbor in 8 hours.
Happy Valley in 6.
Maryland in 4-5.
Bloomington IN in just under 8.
Lafayette IN in about 8.
A couple of others within 9.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
that are consistently sold out, like Lane, why does it matter?
(In response to this post by reestuart)
D
dayooper
2y
So many Big10 alumni in Florida that would jump at the chance to see their team play there. FSU gives great matchups with other schools and it’s a great road trip in the winter months. Clemson? Not so much.
As I said before, I would also love VT in the Big10, more so than UNC.
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
2y
(In response to this post by dayooper)
2y
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
D
dayooper
2y
I live in the heart of Big10 country (Michigan) and very few want Miami. There are quite a few that don’t want to expand and even are those want to go back to an 11 team league. There’s an even bigger chunk that are surprised by every change. They just want to go to the game and be part of the atmosphere, my daughter included.
You very well could be hearing no to FSU. I hear differently. Doesn’t mean we are both wrong.
(In response to this post by Oscar the American)
2y
or so years ago, but I guess that ship has sailed. I also prefer the pre-BCS bowl system, but that ship has sunk.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
D
dayooper
2y
As soon as Maryland and Rutgers were added, I knew the Big10 needed better brands to compete. That being said, going back to 12 is preferable.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
USC was massive get for the Big Ten.
I think it was done in response to the SEC taking Texas.
But in terms of football brands, the B1G is right up there with the SEC now. But I will say, the B1G has more dead weight football brands than the SEC IMO.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
D
dayooper
2y
If the rumor mill is correct, it was USC that reached out to the Big10. I believe they saw the writing on the wall with Texas going to the SEC and the Big10 was their desired landing spot. If the Big10 had refused, I think they would have contacted the SEC next.
Yes, the Big10 has dead weight, but it serves a purpose. All of the lesser programs are in well populated states and, with the exception of Indiana, are the only major university in each state. Even NW is in the hub of Chicago. FWIW, I don’t see Iowa as a dead weight program.
** Edited by dayooper at 6/12/2024, 10:46:44 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
2y
with Flugaur leading the charge worked exactly the way the B1G intended it to. The same can be said of the SEC and the UT/OU acquisition. Conferences all try to say it was the schools that initiate the contact but, the reality is conferences have been driving realignment from the earliest times even if they use the same backchannel methods used in recruiting where an intermediary reaches out with a call me if you're interested and things take off from there. Sometimes conferences go directly in as well but, when you hear the line they called us that is code for I am embarrassed to claim the brazen attempt to disrupt the operations of a conference peer. In the case of USC and the B1G that was Kevin Warren saying he lied about the Alliance.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
V
Vippie1
2y
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
The 🐘 in the room is the relationship between UNC and UVa.
There is a lot of talk about peer institutions, but the author needs to be talking about UVa and UNC.
UNC is the plum of the ACC with regard to expansion. I think UVa cares more about its association with UNC than it does its association with UVa (state politics notwithstanding). I might be wrong, but I think UVa will go wherever UNC goes. The chattering class is saying that UNC is more likely to go to the SEC than the Big Ten. So if this is what transpires, UVa would go along.
My current take is that the B1G and VT would be great for both parties. Especially if the B1G wants to move into the Southeast for football brands. Clemson, FSU and VT are the three best football brands and programs in the ACC. VT is more than solid enough academically to be in the Big Ten.
As a side note, the author gives too much weight to AAU. It is not a requirement for membership, and it is becoming less important WRT B1G realignment. In fact, VT has the credentials to be in the AAU, they just aren't (yet). And while Clemson and FSU might not be quite as close to VT academically, they aren't a complete joke either. I don'y think a lack of AAU membership will be a deal breaker for FSU and Clemson to the B1G.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
and I'm not sure that's reality beyond the fanbase), but they don't get to just choose to go wherever UNC goes...it's a hellUVa leap to imply they just get to tag along of their own volition. UNC sure as hell isn't making a move contingent on UVa tagging along. They only was that prospect makes any sense is in the highly unlikely scenario where both the B1G and SEC want UVa...I'd say it's more likely neither really wants them.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
They are peer academic institutions that are huge rivals both academically and athletically. They have very close ties in medical and other academic research. “The oldest rivalry in the South” isn’t breaking up. The state political ties will also keep VT and State with the aforementioned. Thus you can expect all four will go together, most likely to the SEC.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
2y
Academic rivalry and ties are a nothingburger to conference affiliation. Institutions don't work together academically because of conference membership.
And if UVa and UNC want to maintain a cross-conference rivalry, they're free to do that. And that rivalry is not a big enough deal outside of those 2 schools for a conference to care. Hell, I spent a lot of time living in both of those states and don't even see it as a big rivalry.
I don't know about NC, as I think the state system is governed differently there than in VA, but I don't think VA government can truly tie VT and UVa together...and quite frankly, it would be beyond stupid to do so. Push for it, sure, but when the rubber meets the road, do you want one school left behind or 2? The B1G and SEC hold the cards. They don't want/need any of those 4 schools bad enough to cave to "we're not coming without our rival!"
(In response to this post by Poultrygeist)
2y
While it is all speculation, nice to read a different take on the situation.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
1. Interesting he brings up the economic impact on the state and swva specifically - that was one of the key "arguments" for going with the SEC when we had the chance.
2. I would like to see what his analysis showed of USC/Org/Wash/UCLA - BEFORE they were added to the B1G. Likewise for TX/Okl before they were added to the SEC.
3. While interesting and important perspective, he leaves out the role of TV decision makers in this process. Yes, U Presidents will have a very large portion of the decision making impact, but so will TV executives.
** Edited by 133193Hokie at 6/11/2024, 11:17:01 AM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2
2hhoop3
2y
Not that they are not all valid but, #2 would seem to provide at least a surface proof of concept and accuracy. While Presidents and BOVs will have the ultimate says and final votes I imagine the process will be driven by media entities with ADs, prominent coaches and influential boosters weighing in. However, at the end of the day we all know it ultimately comes down to $$$$.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
2y
schools. Maybe it was just that when we saw them, it was often in the grand setting of Pasadena and the Rose Parade. I think The B1G will try to increase the Western wing around the time of their next contract. The Big 12 contract follows by a year.
No, there are no more Texas/Oklahoma-class properties out there. But if The B1G wants a presence in AZ or NorCal, I suspect FGox will sign-off.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
These are football/athletics decisions, not academic/cultural ones.
"But this database does serve as a way to see how schools would like to see themselves when they look in the mirror" is true, but that has nothing to do with athletics. VT didn't start seeing itself differently because it started playing sportsball with Duke, Wake, and UNC regularly. It's nonsensical. If Tech were to start playing football against all the schools in the B1G that it currently views as peers, nothing significantly changes academically. Sure, we'd leave the ACC Academic Consortium and join the Big Ten Academic Alliance, but if you look at what those orgs do (and don't do), you'll figure out they're nothingburgers in the grand scheme.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
envision the SEC venturing "up north"...just can't see a BC in the SEC...But as always, I could be wrong...
The ACC has desirable teams to both the SEC & BIG...There are a few "bi" teams, i.e. teams that could go both ways, but I don't see the SEC passively allowing the BIG to move into their territory IF the acc unravels. As an acc fan, would like to keep the band together if distribution can increase within range, but...
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Did you see Louisville going ACC? Missouri to the SEC? USC to the B1G? I don't think many envisioned the B1G establishing a west coast outpost until it happened...and you can't think that was "because culture."
(In response to this post by VT757to276)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and foremost about the money. Either the amount of money that can potentially be generated or the wishes of the people signing the money checks. There are other factors but, they fall in line behind the money.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
People seem to think B1G membership opens up funded research somehow...because of the spin the B1G Academic Alliance (and the predecessor CIC) put out there...but, that's not how things work. No one is getting a leg up on research funding because of who they play sports with.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
to cocktail parties with the blue blood academic schools, much like the football teams like to play the blue bloods. While there may not be a direct correlation connecting academic dollar dots, those presidents belong to a pretty small club at the top.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
While stereotypes don't occur for no reason, this "cocktail party hobnobbing" stuff is BS in my experience. The two I've known best were quite far from that. The one I've known that is most like that didn't actually have an academic background.
Similar with other academic higher-ups as well.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
and couldn't care less about athletics. That isn't to say they are all the same, clearly that wasn't my intention, but their primary job is most definitely enhancing the academic side, prestige, donations, and yes, even grants. They do not get those things hanging out with the AD.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
is academics. The term "academic side" is so strange to me. These are academic institutions that happen to play sports. People around here, despite most having been *students* seem to almost view the institution the other way.
Being focused on academics (regardless of interest in athletics...fwiw, 2 of the presidents I've know best were hugely interested in athletics) doesn't equate to "hobnobbing at cocktail parties." That's such an unfair and unfounded characterization. If you've been to fundraising events, sure, you've certainly seen that side of them, but I'd guess at least many, if not most, don't really like that part of their job much (but do spend time and effort on it, because it's obviously quite important). But Tim Sands isn't all jazzed about Stanford and Cal joining the ACC because he's going to get to sip brandy with their leaders in the ACC president's lounge and get their help polishing his ivory tower.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
argue that that's really not a big deal to university leaders any more than it is to the public at large...and pretty much completely irrelevant to conference realignment
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
a necessary evil to some. And to some, athletics is VERY important. I wouldn't call it a perfect bell curve though.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2
2hhoop3
2y
a perspective we all need to keep in mind. Universities are multibillion dollar organizations that have athletics as a part of that organization. In most instances, not all, athletics comprises 10% or less of the organization. For people that work in large organizations consider how much attention a division/department representing 10% or less garners in the grand scheme of the total business.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/11/2024, 1:50:35 PM
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
business relationship they have with The ACC, and SEC as well. But their catalogue of content is vast that they can't overspend or overcommit to any single client. They will not go out on a limb to "save" The ACC/ACCN. They will not invest in unnecessary, redundant content just to preserve The SEC's monopoly. Disney won't allow it.
Writing this I reinforced my belief that The ACC losses will be few, but the few will be large.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
they will not go out on a financial limb to save the ACC or ACCN. However, preserving the SEC monopoly and their flagship property as well as protecting their power and position in the battle with FOX is an entirely different matter, in my opinion, and one that Disney will not only allow but, support the fight as well. That may or may not result in some fortunate by products for the ACC and impact the losses you predict. I am not in the camp that ESPN and FOX are colluding to divvy up the landscape. That secret would be hard to conceal and if something like that became public expose both to significant legal and regulatory risks.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
competing to establish dominance. I think ESPN would be happy to see The SEC spread out a bit; West Virginia, Colorado, Arizona...
Confining themselves to the defense of this discrete Southern homeland imposes certain limits.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
about imposing certain limits but, there are potential benefits as well. The tipping point is results on the field. Right now, with the exception of California, the SEC has a fairly strong grip on the vast majority of talent hotbeds. A few slip away now and then and they might lose a few more to the warm climes of LA but, prospects like the geography and climate of the SEC.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 6/11/2024, 10:38:56 PM
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
has to spend more time on athletics than they like because athletics are so visible…someone used the phrase “front porch of the college” in the past.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
although I suspect some of them might actually enjoy the diversions of athletics, particularly given the tenor on some campuses today.
(In response to this post by mancunian)
2y
Especially when that visibility fairly often shows the world not-so-pretty stories.
I'd also say that folks on this site obviously view athletics as the "front porch" way more than the considerable population that really doesn't care much about sports, if at all.
(In response to this post by mancunian)
2y
USA population? If it weren’t for football, Notre Dame would be a weird local oddity.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Sure, ND likely has enhanced awareness of its existence because they have so many football fans all over, but I don't think that the considerable non-sports-oriented population evaluates ND based on sports. And it may be just as likely that those people form a bad opinion because of the sports as a good one, if it matters at all.
You can also look at a school like Miami and I'd say it's likely that, if anything, having football success and gaining fans all over has hurt their academic reputation. I feel like over the years, people have been surprised to learn that it's actually a good school.
(In response to this post by mancunian)
2y
when/if they become available. And before someone says something about Kansas/Arz football - except for ND, the football wars are over.
(In response to this post by VT757to276)
2y
all honesty, how many Universities rise up to the Texas/Oklahoma level? The Big 10 and the SEC already have the playoff guaranteed money, lucrative media contracts, and a competitive advantage. While it may make sense to move into those areas (basketball/new markets) to us fans, I just don't see it brining in the money to be accretive to those conferences to expand anymore.
Dilution is not an option, and the SEC does not need to play defense with their markets. They are, and will continue to be, the premiere football conference the way they are set up currently.
name the schools left on the table that reach the stature of Texas and Oklahoma in football. Not only that, ESPN needs the B12 and the ACC to be relevant. They didn't need the PAC.
(In response to this post by 133193Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
though the university were a human with a personality, hopes, dreams, and especially arrogance. There are TX fans, alumni, boosters, students, faculty/staff, trustees, and administrators. There are also Texas message board pundits who will tell you what Texas is all about. And I think the "internet Longhorn" is the one we use as our model for "Texas."
But he has no more say about what "Texas" wants or does than our friend Pittinger has in Tallahassee.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
O
obguthr
2y
However, there are a few that are net neutal: FSU, Notre Dame. Clemson is a maybe. They look good now, but will they 5 years from now? Miami is also a maybe but only if they ever truly get "back", which I think they won't, especially if they have to run the SEC gauntlet. The Virgilina 4 and the 4 corners (this isn't ACC-centric) don't increase the bottom line, but we aren't dilutive to an unacceptable degree.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
put the all into the Big 10 as an example, are they worth $800M a year to the conference? That would be neutral. That is the media money. Would the Big 10 then get a larger slice of the playoff money? They would have too, to not be dilutive.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/11/2024, 12:25:44 PM
(In response to this post by obguthr)
2y
Comparing them to the other properties being talked about, Miami seems to fall short. But Flugaur tells us that Fox really wants the Miami market. Can you guess why? It's nothing that Fox came up with. It's their national advertisers. They're telling Fox that adding that market to The B1G footprint enhances the value of the ad package. The advertisers are willing to pay more for Fox air, and Fox can afford to pay for Miami in The B1G. Miami football is the product, but the advertiser just sees a particular demographic that would buy more widgets if situated in The B1G.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
happening. For the Big 10, it brings the State of Florida for their network, and it stakes a flag in Florida for recruiting. It's a good academic school with international reach. It's a solid brand, and when they actually play football again, they may put fans in the seats again.
Look at how many miles it is from Miami to Seattle. Look how many alumni they have living (fan base). Look at their numbers when actually on television - Could they bring that kind of value to the Big 10? As a fan? Sure. As an executive, AD, university president, and Big 10 member? Maybe someday, but not today. They have not been a power football team for too long - but I'll be the first to admit, I don't have a clue.
What I do know, is that for the ACC to remain a "P" conference, they will need Miami and UNC to stay after FSU and Clemson leave.
BTW - I don't think it's a slam dunk that FSU and Clemson will be in the Big 10, and I definitely think both schools would be a fish out of water - but WTH, Cal is in the ACC, Arizona and UCF are in the B12, so just about anything is possible.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
to The B1G may not matter. They need only be acceptable to The B1G if those spending money on TV ads want Miami in the B1G advertising bundle. We hear that it's all about football; no it's markets; no it's academics; no it's culture... Maybe sometimes outside forces intervene.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
I think they're really happy with their continuous footprint with no "outliers." I can see them extending into NC and VA...
(In response to this post by VT757to276)
2y
As I gripe about constantly, the final decisions will be made by presidents, chancellors, and BOVs, and academics and who they perceive as their "peer institutions" will heavily sway their decisions.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
"heavily swayed" by academic considerations?
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
... and the ACC saying, "Duh .... okay."
That didn't make one damn bit of sense. It should have been Miami, VT, and WVU getting plucked from the Big East in the 2003 expansion, not BC and Cuse.
I guess that's the one that shapes my thinking the most, because it hit so close to home. The counter argument is that the ACC under Swofford was a clown show that made a lot of bad decisions, whereas the SEC has made good decisions.
The B1G taking Maryland and Rutgers was about TV markets, not academics, but it wasn't a good decision athletically.
So, yeah, the decision makers screw this up often.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
If for no other reason than many ACC schools recruit the NE for students and use games as marketing opportunities. And how much would more would ACC programs be financially if the ACC network was collecting fees on WV cable homes rather than NY or MA?
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/14/2024, 12:46:58 PM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
... permanent partner from the other division? Miami didn't give a crap about BC or Syracuse.
Fact remains, BC and Syracuse brought nothing to the ACC. The SEC built itself on multiple rivalry games per year. VT to the ACC brought several rivalries. WVU would have done the same thing.
Miami didn't want us because we were beginning to beat them too much.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
R
RJHokie
2y
they would be the big draw playing “each year” in the ACC championship game…..
And how did that work out…….?
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
2y
He so lusted after Miami, he let Shalaya name who she wanted as playmates.
What was sick about that is VT got stuck playing BC every year. Miami only had to play BC as often we got to play Clemson and FSU.
** Edited by Atlee Hokie at 6/11/2024, 1:21:21 PM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
Because from the standpoint of athletics, television and so forth, the addition of WVU would have been superior to any addition not named Virginia Tech or Miami.
The addition of Boston College is a different way to answer the same question.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
Go look at the dollars WVU spends on athletics and compare that number to us and the rest of the ACC. Go look at ticket sales and attendance. Go look at merchandise sales. Look at television ratings.
Your record of being anti-WVU is long. And that’s your choice. But anyone who thinks BC or Syracuse or Pitt or Louisville have brought more value to the ACC than WVU would have is simply delusional.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
2y
Will's claim is that university higher-ups will be heavily swayed by academics. Were BC, Miami, and VT "heavily swayed by academics" in their moves to the ACC or were those athletics moves first and foremost? Did those schools have other athletically-comparable options that they turned down because of academics?
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
The issue is not the basis upon which invitees would seek to join. The issue is the basis upon which the more important group - the ones in position to offer an invitation and acceptance - would decide.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
that I replied to and led us here. That post is 100% about the basis upon which invitees would seek to join.
The original article doesn't seem to be from the perspective of either side...it's just about "fit" from an academic standpoint, and I think that's way overblown...regardless of side. I'm not sure how "the issue" is limited to what you just described, but we can talk about that too. I get what you're saying about WVU and the ACC, but then the same conference later invited Louisville, so how much do culture and academics really matter?
** Edited by Pylons at 6/11/2024, 3:38:40 PM
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
Except for Notre Dame, all of the plum expansion targets are gone.
Florida State's a really good brand, but it's not Oklahoma or USC. Clemson, even less so.
Apart from Notre Dame, the next university in line that potentially could have a choice to make between Big Ten and SEC is probably North Carolina. FSU and Clemson may have spots, but they will take the first offer they get because I suspect the SEC won't be the first league to reopen the expansion process, and those schools arguably have less value to the SEC than the B1G.
Everyone else - including UVa, Virginia Tech, Miami, NC State or whoever else might be in play is going to be desperate to tag along with someone else, or to fill a vacant spot to get some league from an odd to an even number of members, etc. It is highly unlikely anyone other than Notre Dame and maybe UNC would use interest from both leagues as a bargaining chip.
So ultimately, the question becomes, do enough Big Ten or SEC members view your school as a peer and, are they the ones with influence.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
I'd still say that "peer" as defined in that article is largely irrelevant...a tie-breaker at best and I'm not sure there are any ties out there.
There just isn't logic to support "we really want to play sports with XYX State U. because they're an academic peer."
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2y
have the IVY League - you know, an athletic conference. Would they invite a public university?
I think it's more important than you think. It's why the PAC wouldn't add BYU. Or why none of the hatful 8 were invited to the ACC or the PAC when they were available - just a few years ago. There is an academic snobbery out there, and it hurt the PAC, and hasn't helped the ACC.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
The Ivies were the Ivies before there was an associated athletic conference. No other league can say that AFAIK. When someone says "Ivy League," most everyone thinks "top notch academics" first. When someone says "Big Ten" how many people think "academics" at all? I've spent decades in academia and I don't think "academics" when I hear "Big Ten," even realizing it's full of high quality schools
The PAC, I dunno. Not familiar with the history there. Would be cool to read anything about the BYU thing.
Not sure how academic snobbery fits with the league that invited Louisville not all that long ago.
Certainly possible it's more important than I think it *should* be, since it couldn't really be less. 🤣 Even if it's more important than I realize, it's just so far behind the almighty sports media dollar that I don't get why so many talk about it so much. 🤷
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
who has had the pleasure to know a couple VT presidents more than just in passing and who has worked in the highest academic office at VT, I disagree.
Would it be a tie-breaker? Maybe. "Heavily sway"? No. Football and the consequent potential for success in athletics more broadly is the only thing that will "heavily sway" a decision. The importance people ascribe to "ivory tower types rubbing elbows" is pretty misguided based on my experience with academia.
Don't get me wrong, presidents will spin a athletic conference move as being linked to academics...because, as leaders of *academic* institutions, they kinda have to...and why not apply whatever positive spin you can? Doesn't make it the truth, as you certainly know from things said in press conferences in athletics.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
If it were about academics, there is no way that Stanford and Cal (in particular) would not be in the Big10. I'm sure that if you look up Cal, you'll find that the non-land-grant Big10 schools (with the possible exception of Northwestern) have them on their list as either a "true peer" or an "aspirational peer."
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
will call the shots on what they what the final picture to look like. The school presidents/administrators will have no choice but to go along with an invite (should one be extended) where the $$ allows the main revenue driver to compete and not destroy the rest of the non Rev sports...The ACC will be squeezed out of existence, just like the PAC 12 was...get ready for some low-ball offers from ESPN etc to keep the league intact followed up by the phrase " well we tried" as the final dominoes fall...And i dont think AAU accreditation will matter one bit for the B10
(In response to this post by Pylons)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I have said and still believe that ESPN/Fox want to put all their efforts into P2 telecast and not be bothered by the mid level or G5 until maybe championship games. My thoughts is that the big media will instead have either the ACC/Big 12/PAC produce the content and they will buy what they want either adding their own commentators in a stream in stream out at their headquarters or just broadcast the content with the school/league commentators. I think this because that will allow them to not have to carry the low end teams at all. So it will be ACCN distributed through their regional markets to carry more of the televised game and the only way the low end, losing record teams get any air time at all.
Certainly not sure about all the processes but I believe 2 things, 1) Big media wants no part of half filled stadiums and games between below league average teams. 2) Big media want to put just about all their investment into the P2.
(In response to this post by kt22hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
Other than the fact that they do actually have a choice. As influential as TV/media are, the presidents and boards still decide.
fwiw, AAU is not an "accreditation," it's a "membership" very different from accreditations
(In response to this post by kt22hokie)
2y
for recommending Admiral television advertise in black media…”Half the time this business comes down to ‘I just don’t like that guy!!!” My guess is perception and “fit” are going to matter to these guys more than we might think.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
Additions by the SEC and Big ten. Which schools considered Texas and Oklahoma peer institutions. And which schools considered USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington peer institutions. That would give us some idea of how much this actually impacts decision making. How many Big ten schools actually consider their new additions as peer institutions.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/11/2024, 9:28:10 AM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
D
dayooper
2y
Texas, USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon. They put the entire AAU membership as their peers and no one else. Whether they hold AAU status that highly or they just put little effort into it, I don’t know. Knowing Michigan, it could be either.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
1) The Big Ten or SEC members gain by changing the status quo; or
2) Some outside environmental change forces this realignment.
I am not a visionary at all, but right now I don’t see where either circumstance occurs.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
Right now the SEC/B1G (along with their masters at ESPN/Fox) have played it somewhat safe - but I think at some point they will make moves that are seen as monopolistic and the lawsuits will pour in.
You can’t tell me that all of these large state schools will just sit by as they are made into second class athletic institutions based on the fact they were in the wrong athletic conference at the wrong time.
To me politicians on the state and federal level will eventually get involved, unlike pro sports we are dealing with largely tax payer funded institutions here - there will be mass litigation and legislation that will blow this whole thing up.
(In response to this post by Gator Hokie)
2y
fan following. Academics are nice, but does the Big Ten need any more "good" schools to play football? I'm not seeing it at all.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
Although the reasons why individual schools differ considerably. But every schools has glaring negatives from the perspective of the B1G or SEC.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/12/2024, 8:33:40 PM
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
But that’s about it, and I’m not really convinced that is realistic. It feels more like the SEC and Big Ten are where they want to be. Who knows.
(In response to this post by marcbvtgm)
D
dayooper
2y
I just don’t see how UVA moves the needle for the Big10. It’s fantastic school in a new market, but that’s about it. If being a fantastic school in a new area is important, than why did we turn down Stanford and Cal? Why isn’t GT in consideration? Wouldn’t Boston College or Syracuse coveted? There needs to be football appeal and UVA just doesn’t have it. I’m not sure the SEC would want UVA, but I think they are more valuable to the them than the Big10.
Back when Rutgers and Maryland joined, absolutely! But this is a different time with requirements and UVA doesn’t move the needle like the other schools do, including VT.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
They didn’t invite Stanford and Cal because they already got CA viewers
By bringing on USC and UCLA. You don’t need 4 CA schools. That just spreads the payments thinner with no additional benefit… like people are saying bringing in FSU or Clemson doesn’t add anything to SEC since those states are already covered. I’m sure USC and UCLA were a package deal (kind of like people are saying Tech/UVA or UNC/State need to be considered together)
(In response to this post by dayooper)
2y
list would make more sense in the Big Ten. And none of them got an invitation, nor are they likely to. I think UVa is a great school with really good athletics all around. But this is about football and bringing eyes to the TV. UVa doesn't do that.
(In response to this post by dayooper)
2y
Both UVA, UNC (and also clemson) are relatively smaller schools in enrollment, whereas VT Like NC state is encroaching 40,000 total enrollment, but the "national' perception is these schools are not flagship universities, more like the big land grant schools of the Big 10
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
And larger enrollment will ensure more $$ and increased political clout down the road. UVa’s arrogance about it’s supposed selectivity - which basically requires it to keep enrollment low (particularly by B1G standards) - creates a conundrum and may ultimately be a conference re-alignment albatross around its neck.
** Edited by marcbvtgm at 6/12/2024, 8:39:32 PM
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
NC State and VT should be targets of the Big Ten IMO.
But too many people hung up on the prestige of UVa and UNC. It's just bad thinking.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
2y
If the Big Ten wants to get into VA, VT would make more sense.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)