Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56
  1. #21

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    244

    Good point and I like the idea. What exactly are the 4 pods of 5?

    VT plays UVA, UNC, NCSU and who? Or is it 5 pods of 4?


    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    None of the hodge podge stuff. Just do 20 w/ Duke,Wake,Baylor,ND. The NE could use ND to beef it up, the SE could use Wake to give them some easy wins, Texas could keep Baylor AND TT on schedule, and UNC and NCSt. could keep Duke on their schedules. That to me looks like the perfect set up. 4 pods of 5. You play your own pod and another each year in 9 league games that ALL count. You would play a home and away with each team every six years. That isn't too bad if you ask me. Every year, VT would play UVA, UNC, and NC St in its pod creating some major rivalries. And then we would play ND, Louisville, Pitt in yrs 1 and 2. We would play FSU, Miami, Clemson in yrs 3 and 4. And we would play Texas, Okla, OkSt in yrs 5 and 6. And we would have 3 OOC games to play with as well!

  2. #22

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    This anti-UT propaganda is repeated so often that some folks actually believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by KnoxHokie View Post
    Having Texas in the ACC would make it one of the worst conferences. They are just too selfish and non-collegial.
    If Texas is non-collegial, what does that make VT? VT begged to get into the Big East, then when things looked most bleak for the BE, VT stabbed them in the back, and essentially singlehandedly wrecked their suit against the ACC. That was a suit in which VT was plaintiff.

    And I guess we'd better rescind that Notre Dame invitation. If UT is 'selfish', what does that make the Irish, who don't even want to really be a member of their 'conference'.

    You could say UT makes a league unstable, but they've essentially been in the same league before any of us were born. How many leagues has VT graced during that time? Care to guess?

    Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado and Texas A&M left the B12 because they had better options. They can blame the Longhorn Network, but Nebraska would have been gone if the Big Ten had asked regardless of TLN.

    People criticize UT because they try to maximize their revenue based on their relative leverage within their conference. They act like businessmen, which is a good thing imo.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Texas has leverage and they use it. That's just smart business.

    As for Oklahoma, I can't imagine any scenario where bringing in the state of Oklahoma would be preferable to bringing in the Lone Star state. Oklahoma is - and I don't think I'm exaggerating - one of the worst US locales I've ever visited. Outside of the little oasis in Norman, I can't imagine ever going there voluntarily.

    Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth - now that's a state.
    I endured their obnoxious fans at the 95' Sugar owl. Vermin. Don't believe me? Ask any Big 12 fan, or better yet, Any A&M fan. Then you'll understand.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoakie82 View Post
    Doesn't Texas have their own TV network and aren't willing to share revenue or some crazy thing. While it looks like a great conference I think it's highly unlikely.

    I would like to see both Wake and Duke abandon football completely. Maybe in return the ACC could sign a long term deal to remain in all the other sports indefinitely. Even a cash buyout. They are just to small to compete in football and what few recruits they do get just weakens the league.
    Their TV network is drowning in red ink. Probably won't last another year.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Posts
    244
    That's a good point. The bottom line is relationships in general only work if there is enough mutual benefit for all participants. The sum of the whole has to create far greater value than what any individual contributor could achieve on their own. Texas joining the ACC with Oklahoma, OSU, and Texas Tech creates that value for all teams; however there becomes massive disparity in what teams like Wake Forest, and to a lesser degree Duke, contribute compared to what they take. And that's why conferences fall apart (eg: the big east). Sure, it sucks if you're the small guy who gets left out, but you can't blame the big guy if they aren't receiving proportional value back.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by jesuisvtguy View Post
    VT plays UVA, UNC, NCSU and who? Or is it 5 pods of 4?
    Ne pod:
    ND
    Pitt
    BC
    Cuse
    Louisville

    MA pod:
    VT
    UVA
    NCST
    UNC
    DUKE

    Se pod:
    GT
    Clemson
    Wake
    FSU
    Miami

    SW pod:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    OkSt.
    TT
    Baylor


    Play your 4 pod teams and the five from another pod ea

  7. #27

    Join Date
    August 27, 2002
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    If Texas is non-collegial, what does that make VT? VT begged to get into the Big East, then when things looked most bleak for the BE, VT stabbed them in the back, and essentially singlehandedly wrecked their suit against the ACC. That was a suit in which VT was plaintiff.

    And I guess we'd better rescind that Notre Dame invitation. If UT is 'selfish', what does that make the Irish, who don't even want to really be a member of their 'conference'.

    You could say UT makes a league unstable, but they've essentially been in the same league before any of us were born. How many leagues has VT graced during that time? Care to guess?

    Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado and Texas A&M left the B12 because they had better options. They can blame the Longhorn Network, but Nebraska would have been gone if the Big Ten had asked regardless of TLN.

    People criticize UT because they try to maximize their revenue based on their relative leverage within their conference. They act like businessmen, which is a good thing imo.
    I didn't realize everybody on this board is under the age of 20. The Big XII is not "essentially" the SWC. It was the Big 8 plus four SWC schools. Rice, TCU, SMU, and UH all got the shaft, and BU would have as well were it not for political lobbying at a much higher intensity than any used to help VT get into the ACC.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    OK, same conference merged with another...

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfesser View Post
    I didn't realize everybody on this board is under the age of 20. The Big XII is not "essentially" the SWC. It was the Big 8 plus four SWC schools. Rice, TCU, SMU, and UH all got the shaft, and BU would have as well were it not for political lobbying at a much higher intensity than any used to help VT get into the ACC.
    Does the fact that the Big 8 wanted to merge with the SWC indicate Texas was so horrible?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Hokiefan5 View Post
    I endured their obnoxious fans at the 95' Sugar owl. Vermin. Don't believe me? Ask any Big 12 fan, or better yet, Any A&M fan. Then you'll understand.
    I've met my fair share of UT grads (they've got a great law school by the way). It's hard to find a nicer bunch. If you want to drive down I-35 and stop random people sporting UT gear, I'm sure you'll run into a few undesirables. Real UT grads in the real business world are 100% solid. Bank on it.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    August 27, 2002
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    Does the fact that the Big 8 wanted to merge with the SWC indicate Texas was so horrible?
    It indicates that (A) the Big 8 was interested in a championship game and (B) they had no foreknowledge of t.u.'s behavior in '95. Since the creation of the Big XII, three Big 8 members fled, as did TAMU. The loss of one-third of the conference speaks fairly loudly -- especially when that third all point to teasip behavior as a factor in their exodus.

Posting Permissions

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