Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 79
  1. #11
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by reestuart View Post
    Should have taken Rutgers ahead of BC. The Big Ten wouldn't have taken BC, so if the ACC ever wanted them, they'd have been there. Has it been proven that BC has actually added any value to the ACC?
    Rutgers didn't fit the ACC profile. The ACC was looking for private universities. Tech only got in because of pressure from former UVa president John Casteen and former governor Mark Warner. The ACC had their eyes on Miami, BC, and Syracuse. The ACC is more interested in private universities and urban universities. The ACC just took two more private colleges in Notre Dame and Syracuse and two urban universities in Pittsburgh and Louisville. They passed on land-grant universities Rutgers and Connecticut. They would've done the same with Tech except for the pressure I mentioned earlier.

    I would've liked to see the ACC add more larger public land-grant universities since the conference will only have 3 once Maryland leaves next year. The ACC is the complete opposite of the Big 10 and SEC in selecting its membership. The ACC appears to have an aversion for large public land-grant universities. Only Tech and NC State are large (over 20,000 undergrads) land-grant universities. Although Clemson is a land-grant university, it sometimes seems like a large private college like UVa and UNC. The ACC just added another public university that fits that bill with the addition of Pittsburgh.

    It's interesting that Rutgers was one of the last original Big East Football members to leave. Even though they're a large land-grant university, they weren't attractive enough to be picked earlier like Miami, Tech, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlee Hokie View Post
    At no time was Fredo a better fit for the ACC. I guess for some, it looks that way in retrospect. However, at that time, I didn't think Fredo made any sense.
    Could have been as Irish bait only.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by reestuart View Post
    I don't see any reason for it. Wake won a championship a few years ago. Every conference has their dogs, and both of these schools have as many (or more) championships than UVa. Both have more than BC will ever have. That's the school that shouldn't be in the league.
    Past championships have little to do with Duke and Wake's value on a school's schedule. They are a poor draw because that's what they are. That will never change imo, unless Duke pulls a Stanford.

  4. #14
    hokiebob01's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 01, 2001
    Location
    Mint Hill, NC
    Posts
    14,525
    Part of why Syracuse and BC were offered membership is to prevent a serious vote on any proposal like yours. There is a balance in the ACC between the small privates and the big state schools. The league has consistantly voted to maintain that balance.

    To carry it a step further should the league offer us a package without basketball?



    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    I wonder if anybody has ever proposed offering Wake and Duke a Notre Dame-type deal? In other words, let these schools compete in all sports except football as ACC members, and give them 5 OOC games against ACC schools every year. Pay these schools a pro rata share of the ACC TV revs based on their 5 games.

    The benefits to the league are numerous, but the biggest and most economically significant is that you avoid the enormous opportunity costs of 8 mandatory league games versus these schools. More specifically, the opportunity costs of 4 mandatory home games at these schools.

    Duke and Wake have tiny, empty stadiums. They do not generate ticket revenue, and presumably they don't generate much in donations due to football.

    Why not allow FSU to generate another $1-2 million by scheduling a home-home in lieu of a regular home/away with Wake? Or play a higher profile OOC home/away?

    I know there are lots of arguments based on pride, etc., but the bottom line is that the students and alumni simply don't care about their football programs. You can identify fans that care because they're in the stands on gameday.
    I don't always talk to UVa Grads but when I do I always order the Large Fries.

  5. #15
    reestuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Location
    roanoke, va
    Posts
    59,456
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Could have been as Irish bait only.
    If that was the plan, the ACC is way more inept than anyone could have ever dreamed of. ND doesn't love BC. They just about quit playing them when BC joined the ACC. They were royally ticked.
    "Knowledge is good"

    --Emil Faber, 1904

  6. #16

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    I suppose that's one reason why FSU wanted to leave the ACC.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebob01 View Post
    Part of why Syracuse and BC were offered membership is to prevent a serious vote on any proposal like yours. There is a balance in the ACC between the small privates and the big state schools. The league has consistantly voted to maintain that balance.

    To carry it a step further should the league offer us a package without basketball?
    The ACC tries to remain as heterogeneous as possible, which means every school has a slightly different agenda. We're lucky that the real revenue drivers in the ACC don't have better options.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    October 14, 2003
    Posts
    10,282
    Shorter: ACC doubled down on small-time football and VT a better fit for SEC
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiebob01 View Post
    Part of why Syracuse and BC were offered membership is to prevent a serious vote on any proposal like yours. There is a balance in the ACC between the small privates and the big state schools. The league has consistantly voted to maintain that balance.

    To carry it a step further should the league offer us a package without basketball?

  8. #18

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    559
    To carry it a step further should the league offer us a package without basketball?
    That argument doesn't hold water. Basketball is an entirely different animal than football. Who has a 65,000 seat on campus basketball arena that they need to fill each game?

    Duke and Wake add nothing to the ACC football product (that accounts for ~70% of the value of the new media rights contract) and in fact detract from it. They serve only to oversaturate the NC market and siphon off revenue for a sport their alumni don't appear to value. I'd even go so far as to say many Wake and Duke alums look down their noses at the sport of football. But hey, why would they cut themselves off from the spigot?
    Last edited by crabcake77; Fri Jun 14 2013 at 12:27 PM.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    October 14, 2003
    Posts
    10,282
    There is no pressure to leave or improve, especially since the GOR was signed.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSmokieHokie View Post
    What is the motivation for Duke and Wake to give up all of that football money? They've got it great in the ACC as full members?

  10. #20
    Senior Member Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 13, 2012
    Posts
    1,186

    The BOV and president disagrees

    The UNiversity position is ACC is the perfect fit for VT and secondary BIG 10 would be our second choice. VT is not a southern school any more and does not relate to many sec institutions

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •