Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74
  1. #21

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    22,160
    Not to mention that it would be the wrong thing to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    The Big Stadium schools win about 80-90% of the Conference Championships in the SEC. VT would have a lot of work to do to raise that kind of money in this econonmy.

  2. #22
    With NC schools now making up 27% of the conference (as opposed to 50% back in the day) do they really still control the conference?

    If they do control it, would the ACC have added Louisville? While it is a basketball school, wouldn't a school like UConn be more to their liking?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119

    The ACC may be 'well-positioned', but it's not acceptable right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by 133645Hokie View Post
    I just love the fact that, only 12 months after desperate calls for Virginia Tech to move to the SEC "before it's too late", we now see that the ACC is well-positioned for the future. And will be there when (and/or) if the music stops playing. We love the ACC.

    Hokie fans can be so fickle sometimes...
    The bulk of conference revenue is generated from football, and the ACC has only a handful of real football schools. FSU, Clemson, VT (with a smallish stadium), Miami (with NO stadium).

    Hokie Club members like to see good football, particularly home football games. The current ACC lineup is so mediocre that Hokie Club donations will either stay flat or decrease. It doesn't matter if FSU wins the national championship, because they so rarely show up on our home schedule.

    The ACC is in the worst of all positions right now: we have to hope other parties make decisions that favor us. In other words, we hope that Notre Dame and Texas want to join. The upside, on the other hand is huge. Notre Dame alone is not enough, imo. We need at least two real football programs.

    I'll be watching Hokie Club donations carefully over next few years. Hokies will donate to see Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame, but not to see Syracuse, BC, Wake or Duke.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    I think the ACC is one of the 5 elite conferences. ESPN sure does. They wouldn't have signed a big TV contract with the ACC if they didn't think so. Like the conference commissioners and AD's, conferences are more than just football and men's basketball. I include all sports and the ACC is one of the top conferences when considering all sports. The SEC is the best football conference and has been for over a decade. As for the other 4 power conferences, there's not much difference between them in football. The Big 10 hasn't been impressive the past few years and the Pac 12 hasn't been lighting the college football world on fire. If Miami, FSU, Clemson. VT, GT, and UNC play slightly better, the ACC is as good as any of those conferences.
    IMO, the ACC can only grow through acquisition. The current lineup can never be in the top three in football. The ACC has one, or maybe two schools that can generate athletic revenue on par with big SEC and Big Ten schools. It seems like you can't win an MNC unless you generate big money.

    The ACC as presently constituted can never be as good as the SEC. The SEC has slew of programs with big stadiums, loyal fans, huge athletic budgets, great conference revenue and bowl tie-ins. Should I continue?

    We need to add football programs or we'll never crack the top two of five conferences, probably stay in the bottom two instead.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    October 08, 1999
    Posts
    820
    Get me Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor, and Tulane in a western pod along with ND all in for football, along with rotating pods as discussed with a 9 game conference schedule, and I think most Hokie fans will forget about the SEC. The schedule that includes fairly frequent home and home games with FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, NCSU, GT, Pitt, Louisville, ND, Oklahoma, OSU, and Texas is pretty damn good! Sign me up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    How?

  6. #26
    PadrosWindup's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 16, 2003
    Posts
    5,013
    I see a huge cultural difference between VT and the SEC based on desire to win. VT just doesn't have the fire in the belly to win that takes many SEC programs to the dark side. Not necessarily directly breaking NCAA rules, but unseamly stuff that many of TSL, especially the pay board, swear would make them ashamed of their relationship with VT.
    Stuff like oversigning, lack of discipline for arrested players, hiring coaches with shady pasts.
    VT fans simply don't have the stomach for it, don't want to win bad enough to do it, and won't force the administration to hire coaches willing to go there to win.

    IMO, given the recruiting area and financial resources that VT has, VT would be about as competitive as Arkansas or SoCarolina have been since 1992 - occasional division wins with conference championships being few and far between, maybe 1 or 2 in a 20 year time frame.
    In order to be competitive, Arkansas has churned through unsavory coaches like Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino.
    SoCarolina didn't win 10 games as an SEC member until they hired one of the 3 or 4 best coaches in conference history, and even then it took Spurrier several years to get out of the 6-7 wins a year rut to get to double digit wins. I just don't see VT hiring any of these coaches.


    Quote Originally Posted by hokie77 View Post
    When your primary, money-making sport is football, you should be in the very best football conference. The ACC is certainly not that conference. VT missed the boat when the opportunity was there. Now we're stuck in a basketball first conference controlled by the NC mafia, which is not much different from the SEC with schools that abuse NCAA regulations.
    BCS level college football is a resource war, not a morality play.

  7. #27
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    How big is the contract? We still don't know exactly how comparable it is to the elite conferences. I think it's pretty safe to say that the ACC will be making less off of TV than any of the B1G, SEC, Pac12, and Big12 schools. Didn't WVU just get an $80 million dollar contract for its tier 3 stuff alone?
    The ACC will be fine and I bet the ACC schools will be making more money than the Pac 12 and Big 12 schools in the very near future. Why? The ACC footprint has the most TV sets and will continue to experience population growth in most of their TV markets. As for the Big 10, they showed their desperation by going after a few ACC schools in the South to booster their stagnant TV market. They added Maryland and Rutgers. The rest of the Big 10 footprint (population) will only grow 1 to 3% in the next 20 years while the ACC's will grow as much as 20%. Getting Notre Dame, the nation's #1 college brand, didn't hurt the ACC either. Of all the ACC members, only the Syracuse and Pittsburgh areas won't experience much growth in the next 20 years. The Big 10 has 10 to 12 Syracuses. That's why Jim Delany had to make his move last November. I don't even know if the Big 12 will be around in 5 to 10 years. The Pac 12's TV markets are half that of the ACC's at best. Plus the Pac 12 gets lower TV ratings for football than the ACC. I truly believe that the ACC is well positioned for future success.

  8. #28
    Femoyer Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 20, 2003
    Location
    Glen Allen, VA
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    The bulk of conference revenue is generated from football, and the ACC has only a handful of real football schools. FSU, Clemson, VT (with a smallish stadium), Miami (with NO stadium).

    Hokie Club members like to see good football, particularly home football games. The current ACC lineup is so mediocre that Hokie Club donations will either stay flat or decrease. It doesn't matter if FSU wins the national championship, because they so rarely show up on our home schedule.

    The ACC is in the worst of all positions right now: we have to hope other parties make decisions that favor us. In other words, we hope that Notre Dame and Texas want to join. The upside, on the other hand is huge. Notre Dame alone is not enough, imo. We need at least two real football programs.

    I'll be watching Hokie Club donations carefully over next few years. Hokies will donate to see Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame, but not to see Syracuse, BC, Wake or Duke.
    How true. In the mean time we need to be very proactive with our OOC home scheduling or we could see declining donations while we wait. Not only will Hokies not donate to see the schools you mentioned but they will also not donate to see East Carolina, Western Carolina, Marshall, ODU et. al. Our conference schedule does not give us that luxury like teams in the SEC and Big 10.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    The ACC will be fine and I bet the ACC schools will be making more money than the Pac 12 and Big 12 schools in the very near future. Why? The ACC footprint has the most TV sets and will continue to experience population growth in most of their TV markets. As for the Big 10, they showed their desperation by going after a few ACC schools in the South to booster their stagnant TV market. They added Maryland and Rutgers. The rest of the Big 10 footprint (population) will only grow 1 to 3% in the next 20 years while the ACC's will grow as much as 20%. Getting Notre Dame, the nation's #1 college brand, didn't hurt the ACC either. Of all the ACC members, only the Syracuse and Pittsburgh areas won't experience much growth in the next 20 years. The Big 10 has 10 to 12 Syracuses. That's why Jim Delany had to make his move last November. I don't even know if the Big 12 will be around in 5 to 10 years. The Pac 12's TV markets are half that of the ACC's at best. Plus the Pac 12 gets lower TV ratings for football than the ACC. I truly believe that the ACC is well positioned for future success.
    The ACC had a bigger footprint than the Pac12 when the current co tracts were originally negotiated/signed and their's dwarfed ours. It was cometed something like 6 months after our's.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    February 21, 2013
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    IMO, the ACC can only grow through acquisition. The current lineup can never be in the top three in football. The ACC has one, or maybe two schools that can generate athletic revenue on par with big SEC and Big Ten schools. It seems like you can't win an MNC unless you generate big money.

    The ACC as presently constituted can never be as good as the SEC. The SEC has slew of programs with big stadiums, loyal fans, huge athletic budgets, great conference revenue and bowl tie-ins. Should I continue?

    We need to add football programs or we'll never crack the top two of five conferences, probably stay in the bottom two instead.
    Look within for the answer. Each time the ACC has expanded they have held out expectations of burgeoning football cred. It didn't happen. Adding FSU didn't make Duke better in FB. Adding Tech, Miami & BC didn't make UVA a FB powerhouse. The latest invitees will not change the stature of ACC football. If ACC schools want to produce Championship caliber progams, they need to spend $$$ on practice & training facilities that don't pale in comparison to the big boys. They need to build proud stadiums. They need to seek coaches that can stand face to face with their BB counterparts. And they have to sell it. You want your school to have a successful FB team? You better make your fans and donors want to be a part of it.

    It's not as simple as inviting Texas. The individul school's administrations know this. They have been trying to do it on the cheap. That "To Do List" above takes ungodly sums of other people's money. Committing to it takes courageous leadership. It's risky.

    Basketball has carried the ACC a long way. But now the gravy train is the gridiron by a widening margin. The cable TV ship may have sailed. If the conference truly wants to avoid being left behind, the duration of the current ESPN deal should be spent raising $$$ and spending it on a grand FB infrastructure. Adding "better" programs won't work.

    Many believe that football's days are numbered. If the ACC leaders believe that too, then why waste the time & dough? But that may just be their excuse for not undertaking the long climb.

Posting Permissions

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