Not just me saying it, Ross Dellenger 5+11 gaining if Selection Criteria ⬆️
improved. Having stated selection criteria would be a huge improvement, but highly ranked wins over overall record would be linchpin to 5+11 and a nine game conference schedule. I would think if they go to 9, the ACC would do the same.
87 Replies
M
mjfhokie
1y
Interesting article on the math of 9 games versus 8 games in a schedule. A probability comparison of playing an additional SEC team was done and simply adding a 50-50 game to replace a 90-10 game substantially reduced percentage chance of top record.
Two key items:
First, adding another SEC game increases strength of schedule - especially since most SEC schools have 3 or 4 "easy" games on their schedule. Add one 50-50 game to each team's schedule makes a 9 win season almost half as likely.
Second, introducing a 9th game will reduce the number of teams at .500 or above (and decrease the number of teams with only 3 SEC losses).
I looked at last year's SEC standing and while there was only one .500 team (4-4), there were six 5-3 teams. Assuming that 4 losses is the maximum number of losses for an SEC team to make the playoff (i.e. Alabama/ LSU and USC were all 9-4 last year & just out of the playoff), a 9th game (on average) would put three more teams on the bubble with no room for error against non-conference foes.
Of course, this could be addressed with taking into account SOS for non-conference games - but I seen no reason for SEC to push for that.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
BIG plays 9 conference games. They also play rivalry games OOC and special matchup games the same as the SEC.
But the SEC wants the large payday for fewer conference games while also wanting to maximize their playoff teams. Everyone, especially the BIG, should be calling the SEC out for this constant excessive overreach.
The SEC has already won the money and power game vs the ACC, PAC and G5. Now they are just being annoying.
(In response to this post by mjfhokie)
1y
anything it wants as soon as it starts to whine its entire life.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
If you play an additional conference game, someone has to get an additional conference loss. It's simple math. The difference with the SEC is that none of those teams think they should ever lose, and when they do lose, they think it shouldn't count.
(In response to this post by mjfhokie)
1y
Improving that should be a no brainer at this point. I just hope it is based on the rankings at the end of the year, and not when they played.
PS I am totally against weak scheduling to get you in the playoff, they won't make selection perfect, they can definitely improve it considerably.
** Edited by Stech at 6/2/2025, 10:52:11 AM
(In response to this post by mjfhokie)
1y
Why should the schedule count for so much, when teams only control 1/3 or 1/4 of their schedule? And, really, for 90% of teams, they don't really control 1/3 or 1/4 of their schedule, because they can't "make" "good" teams play schedule them, nor do they have a crystal ball to intuit at the time of scheduling whether or not a team will be good 20 years down the road when they actually play. Teams can only play the schedule that's put before them.
There's a major distinction between penalizing a big money power program that only schedules weak G5 and FCS programs OOC, and penalizing a program for not being able to force SEC and Big 10 teams to schedule them. I see this kind of crap from Ohio State types talking down to Boise State types all the time - "well, why don't you just schedule and beat stronger teams, if you're so good?" Because those teams won't schedule Boise State, and you can't make them.
"Strength of schedule" is just BS double speak for, "we're going to penalize programs for not being in certain conferences," and it always has been.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Michigan's last year. Both those schools could schedule just about anyone they want.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
like they are already in the SEC or B1G if they want to get into the SEC or B1G. It's not perfect, but I don't buy the excuses that non P2's can't schedule higher ranked games. They don't because the coach and AD's are protecting their jobs. Change the system so that you are rewarded for scheduling highly ranked programs.
PS We should play (conference or nonconference games) against FSU, Miami, Clemson every year. instead we give that to Notre Dame because our Commissioner favors Notre Dame over our conference members and our AD and HC want an easier schedule.
** Edited by Stech at 6/2/2025, 11:12:12 AM
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
T
TerryD
1y
....to beef up the TV ratings for Clemson, FSU and Miami.
That allows those schools to make more money under the new payout scheme.
The conference is trying to favor/prop up/ enrich those schools, not ND.
ND makes no more money playing FSU or Clemson, but those two will, conversely.
Now, it does help ND's SOS, but the prime motivation for the ACC is to funnel more money to those 3 programs.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
that is for the good of the overall conference. It is not Notre Dame's fault for taking advantage of it.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
That's the flaw in your argument. There's no existing mechanism to MAKE media darling programs agree to schedule you OOC. To the contrary, there are a million reasons why they should NOT schedule you.
(In response to this post by Stech)
It isn't difficult to improve upon Liberty, JMU, ODU and Wofford, et al.
There is NO legitimate excuse for us to be playing any of them.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
My point is that you're starting down a slippery slope when you start penalizing football programs for not being able to schedule only premier brands OOC. Like I said, you can't force Alabama and Ohio State to agree to an OOC home and home series.
On the other hand, I have zero problem with penalizing powerful, name brand football programs for only scheduling BS OOC games. It's all about the context, which is why a "zero tolerance" policy for schedule strength doesn't work. If you're Notre Dame, you can do literally whatever you want with your schedule. If you're Boise State, not so much.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
in State G5 schools every year is a good thing, even the occasional FCS in State school depending on the State. VT goes a step further, and plays in JMU's stadium every once in a while, and that too is a game I as a casual fan, would tune into.
Ohio State schedules one MAC Ohio school every year. That is good for college football, but Ohio state will NEVER schedule a road game against one of them in their stadium. You might get an occasional "road" game in a neutral stadium like in Cleveland against Toledo, or Cincinnati against Miami (OH), or Ohio University, but NEVER in a G5 stadium. it's better than nothing for those Ohio MAC schools I guess, but as you know, playing on the road in a hostile environment is just different.
Why doesn't Alabama schedule Birmingham, or Troy? They will schedule a home game against Kent state, but not even look at their in state G5's. Are they just chicken sh*ts?
No, you guys keep a date for your in State G5's, and don't be afraid to travel to their stadiums once ever 2 or 3 years. It may not get you the money or media dollars for that ne weekend, but I think it's what college football should be, and at least from me, it earns respect.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
Those schools are relatively cheap to bring to Blacksburg.
There’s a point where the costs to lure teams to Blacksburg to play becomes too costly. We were very lucky to have a home and away series with schools like Ohio State, Nebraska, etc. Ped State also agreed but used the pandemic to void the contract.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
We don't need schools like that. Schedule WVU and other Big12 schools.
Schedule non-conference ACC games. Maryland and Rutgers are fine.
Anything but the garbage games I mentioned. Scheduling games like that for the sake of "money" is death by a thousand cuts.
Sorry to rant RJ. I guess you can tell I am passionate about this subject. Have been for a long time.
Sorry
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
1y
can't afford NOT to schedule home and homes with Liberty and ODU" narrative at this point, because it was, is, and always has been a load of BS from Whit Babcock. You can really tell what the AD's office thinks of the average VT fan, trying to pawn off that BS narrative.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
I would think some of the Big 12 schools would like to do home and home arrangements.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
if VT wants a stronger schedule they can get one. There is nothing flawed in my argument, the flaw is making excuses for why we can't improve our schedule. I seriously don't believe that you believe we can't improve our schedule substantially, no matter how many times you say it. If you do believe it, let's stop this back and forth with we agree to disagree.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
LSU we played hh in 2003 and 2007
Nebraska we played hh in 2008 and 2009
Ohio St was hh in 2014 and 2015
ND was forced into hh
Alabama was neutral site
USC was neutral site
Tennessee was neutral site
South Carolina is neutral site
WVU was neutral site and hh
The rest of the OOC games are Vandy, Purdue, Rutgers, Cincinnati, Boise State type games.
We very rarely get the big schools to play us. And very very rarely to play us home and home.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
that hard. If there is a will, there is a way.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
That's not what I'm saying. The logical conclusion of your argument that "strength of schedule is everything" is, "why doesn't everyone schedule Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Georgia out of conference every year?" That's not an option.
Of course VT could improve its schedule. VT should not be playing Wofford; that's a joke. But, it's also not like VT can call up Tennessee or Michigan tomorrow and say, "you have to play us every year, starting next year." That's a simple fact of life that has to be acknowledged if you're going to make strength of schedule paramount over everything else.
I seriously can't believe that you have been watching college football for any amount of time, haven't recognized the enormous and efficient propaganda machine the SEC runs 24/7 to push the narrative that, before a single game is even played, their teams are inherently better than any other teams, and don't recognize that "strength of schedule," in the context of slotting at-large teams into a playoff, is largely code for "more SEC teams."
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
not entice the "brands" to schedule 1 and 1's, maybe there is an opportunity to get SOS, AND media numbers for the B12 and ACC.
The weekend before rivalry week is when most of the SEC schools schedule their FCS or easy home G5 games. If the ACC and B12 truly wanted to schedule a tougher schedule, they should leave that weekend open, and have the ACC's top team, play the B12's top team, and on down the line for All B12 and ACC schools. Alternate every other year for a home game, and don't know who your opponent is until a week before.
It would get the high ratings because they would get the time slots normally dominated by the "brands" of the SEC and BIG. It would also match the best against the best, 2nd best, 3rd best, and on down the line. Those ranked 3rd, 4th, or 5th in the conference ranking get an opportunity to get a quality win to get an at large, and those at the top do not lose their position for the conference championship.
if you want the media regular season media dollars, you have to give the fans and media companies games that bring in the ratings. It's a lot better than a highly ranked Clemson as an example, playing a low ranked Wake Forest - and the same for the B12. It also exposes the SEC for what they are.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
adopt the conference challenges that currently exist in college basketball, there's one potential flaw with your alternating home games and not knowing your opponent idea. It is possible a team could end up playing back-to-back home (or away) games in consecutive years under your proposal. I think it may have happened once or twice during the ACC-Big Ten Challenge. Also, it is worth noting that some match-ups are not 1 vs. 1, but 1 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 3/4 to ensure everyone alternates home and away in consecutive years.
The other potential issue is that not all college football stadiums are roughly the same size like you see with basketball arenas. That could be an important factor when someone is calculating the opponent's "value." For example, Iowa State could be scheduled to play at FSU this year. Then next year Iowa State could be scheduled to play BC at home. In terms of "opponent's value," I think you would agree that Iowa State could make more money playing FSU at home than BC at home. It's a moot issue in college basketball because the arenas are about the same size and everyone plays a lot more home games during the regular season to minimize schools from manipulating ticket prices for individual games. If a conference challenge is going to exist in college football and the games aren't going to be played at neutral sites, then the pairings will probably need to be done on a 2 year cycle to ensure both teams get a home game.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
would go along with that idea. There is a reason (or reasons) the basketball conference challenges split the home games each year between both conferences. That reason or those reasons would still apply to a football conference challenge. As a Hokie fan I would hate it if the "luck of the draw" plays out where VT is playing at the Big XII's "most desirable programs" majority of the time and gets "stuck" playing home games against the Big XII's "least desirable programs."
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the top schools. A one loss VT could be playing an undefeated BYU. Does it matter which stadium it's in?
Or, in an off year, a two or 3 win VT could be playing a 2 or 3 win KU. I don't think it matters from year to year which team visits your stadium, as it would be based on that years performance for both schools. The schools do not enter into a 1-1, the conference does, based on the standings the week before the game.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
agree to evenly split the revenues the home team earns from the game. Also, it still doesn't change the fact that every team doesn't have the same value within a conference. A 0-13 (I decided these teams played their 13th game at Hawai'i) Clemson, FSU, and Miami still have a higher value than a 12-0 BC, Duke, UVA, and Wake. I suspect the Big XII has similar examples even if the gap isn't as wide as what exists in the ACC.
Historically college football has not had the same level of consistency in the ACC like you see in basketball. The same may be true for the Big XII. At least until the new norm has been established given the loss of Oklahoma and Texas. The reason the name of the opponent matters is because teams play a lot fewer games in football than in basketball. As a result, a school could significant mark up the cost of a ticket for a bigger named opponent (if so desired). There is some manipulation of ticket prices in basketball, but not nearly to the level in college football because the 10 or so additional home games negates any leverage the school may have to attempt it. Instead of a $50-$100 mark-up in college football, the school may only be able to do a $10-$20 mark-up. That change in price is significant when you factor in how much additional revenue a school can generate playing 1 game in a 50-75K football stadium vs. a 6-10K basketball arena.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
alternate the home game every other year so no team/school gets an advantage monetarily or other wise. Look at it as a conference 1 and 1.
Revenue would be neutral.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
their ticket prices based on the opponent. For example, the starting price (2025 individual game tickets at VT) for the Wofford game is $20, every other home opponent (except Miami) is $30, and Miami is $45. I guarantee you that if Vandy had the same brand value as Miami, then it's starting price would be $45 too. The comparison of lost revenue is not comparing VT to another school. It is comparing the difference on how much money VT is able to make playing Vandy at home with a minimum price of $30 vs. playing Alabama/Georgia/Florida/LSU/Oklahoma/Texas/TAMU/Tenn at home with a minimum price of $45 (or more).
Remember a factor, maybe even the main factor, ADs will use to determine if they support the idea or not is the impact to a school's bottom line if they agree to the proposal. If you compare the capacity of both venues within the ACC, then you will see about a 50K delta for football and a much smaller delta in basketball.
Football Capacity
Clemson or FSU is the largest at around 80K
Wake is the smallest around 34K
BC is next around 37K
Duke is around 40K
For schools near the top in the capacity list, that $15 difference could be financially significant if the AD assumes in both scenarios that every ticket is sold. Even for the schools at the bottom of the list it could still be significant particularly if the school can bring in temporary bleachers for the game (i.e. what UConn did for its home game against Michigan). FWIW I know Duke manipulates its ticket prices for basketball to help maximize its revenue earned while playing in a smaller arena. Heck Kentucky men's basketball does it even though Rupp Arena's capacity is around 27K (I think).
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the school has a home game against a big named opponent.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
flat rates for home games against a big named opponent. ADs strike me as being mostly bottom line people. I suspect most (maybe all) hate to leave money on the table if it can be helped and that's what they would be doing by no adjusting their rates for bigger named opponents.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
out on a regular basis. At KU, you could just buy season tickets and get pretty decent seats without a donation. It's no longer like that, and the season tickets were priced on a per game basis. It wasn't more for the Texas game, or the K-State game. When Toledo played there many moons ago, tickets were not less expensing at the box office, but you could get them for just about free in the parking lot.
After market sales is of course different. Try seeing a game at Ohio State, no matter who they are playing, and it's sold at a premium. When you are put on a list, even after a donation to the athletic department, it kinda takes the wind out of your sails. Larger donations of course get seats, but it's still a very hard and expensive get.
I guess it all depends on the attendance history of the school in question. I for one, was surprised to learn that VT has different prices for different opponents, but isn't that for non season ticket holders only?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
the package has been priced according to who they're playing. When they used to send actual, physical tickets in the mail, they would have different face values.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
who they play? I mean, is raising ticket prices on the board for you guys? KU just raised their pricing with their new stadium, and you used to be able to get a seat for under $200 (season), without a donation. Now, you can't touch a seat for that amount.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
They will usually announce a "sell out" anytime they play someone with a pulse, but you get in and there are plenty of empty seats. At least once or twice a year now, they don't even technically sell out, which I assume is going to continue this year, because they're already hawking flex deal ticket packages on Facebook and Twitter.
This is largely owing to VT football, with one brief exception in 2016, being, at best, completely mediocre, and, at worst, pretty awful for about 13 years running. From 1998-2012 or so, every game was an announced sell out, and when you got into Lane, it was actually completely full, no empty seats, even at the very top of the east stands. Back then, you'd have been laughed at talking about a "flex plan." I remember buying two tickets from a scalper in 2006 to take my then-girlfriend to see them play Cincinnati, who wasn't even ranked, and having to shuck out $125 a pop. And that was after haggling, he wanted $150 a ticket. And these weren't cushy west stands tickets, relaxing in the shade of the press box - they were like halfway up the east stands on the 30 yard line.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/3/2025, 9:49:19 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
their tickets to friends, and even strangers. that changed when they started selling out. At Toledo, all students get in free - always. Not so at schools like ND, Texas, Bama, and other blue bloods - including even Nebraska today.
The rich will contiue to get richer, but do you really think it is any different than the 90's when VT went on their run? The kids want to play for a winner. some give that up with the money being thrown around, but again, is it really that much different?
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
If VT started winning 10-11 games a season, people would be absolutely wild for VT. The season tickets would sell out, and scalpers would be demanding $300 a ticket for cupcake games.
If you've just recently started paying attention to VT, then you have no idea what it's like when they're actually good. It's on another level. I'd put the experience and the passion up against that of any other sports organization, amateur or pro, in the world. When it comes to football, there's something in the blood at VT. It's why folks around these boards are so irritated and pissed off about everything now, as opposed to being apathetic like our jolly good chums at Mr. Jefferson's clown college up the road.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/3/2025, 10:20:55 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
didn't live in flyover country - but that is another story. When VT landed in the ACC, not so much. It just didn't interest me much as a casual fan, but I have always had apathy for ACC football. Except for the national attention of FSU and Clemson, ACC football was a pretty big nothing burger for me. I imagine it is no different for those fans in the ACC when we talk about the hateful 8 of the B12.
Before the ACC raided the Big East, I was most definitely an interested casual fan, and is one of the main reasons that VT and WVU are on my bucket lists of stadiums to experience.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Despite the revisionist history, if you were actually there and watching, it was a really good football conference. VT, Miami, WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse were all really good programs then, playing to win. ESPN had the media rights to put Big East football games on Thursday nights, which was somewhat of a novel idea at the time, and really put VT on the map, since they were pretty much the only football game on coast-to-coast. The problem was that CBS had the primary Saturday rights, and really only wanted to pay to put the biggest football games (with few exceptions, usually involving either Miami and/or VT) on TV and didn't want to pay a premium that would keep all the programs happy, and, eventually, the ACC raided the conference and took what it wanted.
What's funny is that the dumbasses running the ACC then were, of course, thinking more about basketball than they were football, and really only wanted Miami so they could sell Miami-FSU football games. They wanted Syracuse and Boston College to create a super basketball league. The political maneuvering that forced the addition of VT in 2003 instead of Syracuse was just a serendipitous positive outcome for the ACC. Nobody considered that the floor was about to fall out from under college basketball, which now, with the exception of the NCAAT, does basically no numbers. Nobody now cares about the college basketball regular season, or the ACC tournament. The people running the ACC have always been about 20 years behind the times in their decision making.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
and of course lots of SEC and BIG teams will be preseason top 25 resulting in lots of early ranked matchups. And if there are any surprise teams in a given year, then they point to the wins over "ranked teams" to boost up the lower level brand teams (like Vandy, Northwestern, South Carolina, Indiana, etc.).
It's the same playbook as what they have already done with basketball.
Yes it is better than multi-AQ, but it still has a massive advantage for the P2.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
completely objective ranking criteria for CFP rankings. An agreed upon algorithm, with zero subjective human element. Just take the committee entirely out of it.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
advantage the BIG and SEC have over their schools. Those advantages, fair or unfair, will have to be dealt with on the field.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
then there's no crying, nor is there "conference bias."
Also, at the end of the day, no matter how much the SEC or anyone else wants to cry about it, the wins and losses have to matter for something. You can't reward one conference for losing, and penalize another for winning.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VPI_1998
1y
that I really disliked was the whole "strength of schedule" criteria that kept VT out of the tourney for years when they were just as good as 40 of the other teams in the tourney. I don't care what formulas or metrics are used - it can be super subjective and if you start out with 70% of your conferences teams ranked in the top 25 like the SEC did in basketball this past year, odds are an SEC will win the tourney like this year because the tourney will be loaded with SEC teams.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
the early rankings are worthless at the end of the year. The idea is to reward the teams that have the most signature wins based on the end of the year rankings. Thus, you need to schedule tough games both in and sometimes more out of conference if you’re in a weaker conference.
Get it the old fashion way, EARN IT!!!
** Edited by Stech at 6/2/2025, 7:45:33 AM
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
A 6-4-6 will solve everyone's concerns.
6 champions form CCGs
4 runners ups from CCGs
6 winners of play-in game (of 12 highest ranked teams not playing in a CCG) the same weekend as the CCGs.
This means that weekend would have 10 CGs (20 teams) and 6 play-in games (12 teams). So you would have 32 teams in contention for the 16 CFP spots the first weekend in December. YUGE ratings, and fun.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
just agree that the 4 champions of the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, and SEC get in, the top ranked G5 champion gets in, and then the conferences can do play in "tournaments" for the other spots, which are doled out in equal amounts, with the exception being that the entire G5 participates in a play in stakes, instead of each G5 conference.
And, of course, for the odd spot out, Notre Dame gets some kind of most favored nation entrance clause, as they always will.
Frankly, this is all stupid; they should just do what the FCS has been doing for decades, and just do a 24 team tournament. 10 conference champions, and 14 at-large bids. Then everyone can just STFU about strength of schedule, conferences, everything, and play the games they're scheduled to play. The only whining you'd ever hear would be from four and five loss SEC teams who didn't get an at-large.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I see the play-in games as OUTSIDE of the conference, this would include ND
Top 12 teams not in a CCG. No more than 6 per conference. No intra-conference games.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
I wouldn't even bother with having "play in" games to get into the CFP - just put more teams in the CFP.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
We are effectively talking about the same thing. However, I form it the way
I do because the conferences want to keep conference championship games, and this is a way to keep those game and make them mean something, as well as not giving teams who don't make a conference championship a defacto bye. It also isn't a straight up ranking, which can be majorly manipulated.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
conference championship was set up to generate money, and the playoff contract is guaranteed money as well. I'd be willing to bet a 24 team playoff structure would generate more money then the now irrelevent conference championships.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I don't disagree with you, but the conferences (read: SEC) isn't ready to
give up the CGs.
I wish they would. I always disliked them. College football was better without them and with smaller round-robin conferences.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the ratings it generates.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
best possible to keep the audience national. They will still dominate the playoff, but it won’t be 50% bids for just being in the P2.
That would have been devastating to the national audience IMHO.
** Edited by Stech at 6/1/2025, 5:56:22 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
In the scenario, the P2 could win 10 of the 16 bids.
It's what they would likely get in a 4-4-2-2-1-3. And it would make the regular season so much more interesting. Plus the money from the play-in games. When are these idiots going to realize that competition sells?
Could even go 5-4-7 with seven play-in games if they want.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Games. So does the ACC. It’s the SEC ACC rivalry games that are reluctant, they should just open the season with those games and close with another Conference Rivalry game Thanksgiving weekend. Virginia Tech should open every year in *DC against West Virginia too. It makes the off season that much more interesting. If you win, you get great momentum, if you lose, you still can win your conference or end with a top 10 ranking and make the playoff.
PS Call it the largest outdoor no label cocktail party 🤣. Seriously get Amazon or Boeing to put a label (sponsorship) on it. 😁 Virginia should have a game every year that’s closer than Blacksburg for the DMV, RIC and the 757. Stop acting like Southwest Virginia Tech all time, and act like Virginia Tech.
** Edited by Stech at 6/2/2025, 7:35:03 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
Also, FedEx is a dump, one of the worst stadium experiences in the NFL. If they were going to do this, they should either do it at M&T Bank, or wait until they renovate RFK to start doing neutral site games in actual DC.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
to be a substitute for a home-home series that takes place on both campuses in an amped up, pulsating, raucous college football stadium. An NFL or municipal stadium can never match that environment or experience.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
Shootout, World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party, and the Army-Navy Game would be "better" if the games were played on campus instead of annually in a neutral site.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
To be clear, I'm not saying "ban neutral site games." I'm saying that, in my opinion, and based upon my experience, games played on the teams' respective campuses are usually a better experience.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
minimal at best. I think it was in the 80's the World's Largest Cocktail Party briefly switched to home-home and I didn't notice any difference watching the game on TV.
Given the uniqueness of the Army-Navy Game, I'm not sure the game should be played on campus unless both schools agree to significantly expand their stadium capacity to include the enrollment of the other school. I suspect distance is the only the game against Air Force isn't played on a neutral site.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Clearly, neutral site games are usually catering to a TV audience.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
been "better" if the game had been played at Lane.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Everyone has, and is entitled to, an opinion.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
a 75-80K seat Lane Stadium could be like. My seats were near the USC band, who was fashionably late to game for whatever reason, because the ushers were asking people to remain in their seats until the band were seated. I thought it was the weirdest thing seeing everyone wear dark sunglasses to a night game.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
have ACC or B12 teams winning the thing, and there will be G5 schools that make a run as well. The money, home field advantage, and the bias in the polls isn't enough? It's a hot mess the SEC and BIG have created. Having them "solve" the mess they created is suicide.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
likely in.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
The SEC wants 5+11 and to stay at 8 games. Not sure the B1G is going to
allow them to have both.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
over the overall record. It’s not done yet, but it’s moving in that direction.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VPI_1998
1y
Artificially inflate all the preseason rankings of the teams in the SEC, play only each other, then tell everyone how tough you are despite your record because the conference has so many ranked teams, and voila! You have 6 teams deserving to be in the playoff, the odds of winning the playoff are better because of shee numbers, and therefore it just means more in the SEC.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
a completely objective algorithm for producing the CFP rankings, which do not start coming out until November, 2/3 of the way through the season. So, preseason media rankings, which are solely used for TV hype, should have nothing to do with it, if you do it that way.
If the SEC and Big 10 are so confident that their teams are the best in the country, they should readily agree to be judged by agreed upon, objective criteria starting at the beginning of November, utilizing the body of data that will exist by that time. If they refuse, then they look like total bull****ters, and should be called out for it relentlessly.
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
1y
to an expanded playoff structure, was to minimize the subjectivity of the selection process, and allow the national championship to be decided on the field, like all other NCAA sanctioned sports.
The goal of the P2, besides trying to monopolize the process, is money, pure and simple.
I don't think that no matter how this shakes out, that there will be a completely level playing field for getting into the playoffs, yet, the top schools from the ACC, B12, and even G5 will be included. While we all see how the scales are tilted, There currently is
a zero chance where the ACC or B12 champion will not be included in the playoffs. In addition, G5 teams of the past that could have competed, but were left out, and will now get a shot at the title.
Schools not in the P2 will have a tougher time with the money disparity, but there are many schools that will find a way to compete, and there will be some that won't. Either way, I see that my school, which doesn't compete for titles very often, will now have a chance to put up, or shut up on the field, not just in the polls. I also think that VT has a better chance of a national championship now, than they did in the 90's. (shows how special those teams were).
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
1y
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)