Realignment Thread

[VTscores]

At the very least the Hokies have dominated conference play, 53-11 since it joined the ACC (not counting ACCCG). That's pretty damned good regardless of any conference you play in. You would be hard pressed to find a team with much better success in conference over the last 10-12 than that. Imagine how this conference would be looked upon had VT not been here the last 10 years...

It doesn't really help the ACC to dominate it but to lose BCS bowls. For VT (or any team) to be a real asset to the ACC, they also have to win their OOC games.

 

[Rocco]

I'm not sure I am following you Rocco?? Why is VT partially responsible for the ACC's struggles?? Because we lost a few tough games?? Not sure I agree with what I think you are saying. Explain further if you will.

If anything, VT has carried the ACC banner and the conference on its back since it joined and kept the conference SOMEWHAT relevant. Sure, We have lost some big games that we should have won, but it is not like anyone else is stepping up. At the very least the Hokies have dominated conference play, 53-11 since it joined the ACC (not counting ACCCG). That's pretty damned good regardless of any conference you play in. You would be hard pressed to find a team with much better success in conference over the last 10-12 than that. Imagine how this conference would be looked upon had VT not been here the last 10 years...

VT hasn't done well in BCS games. They're playing in them which is more than FSU and Miami can say, but ultimately they have a lot of the ACC's losses when people wave the ACC's record in BCS games like a bloody shirt.

 

[Hokie200proof]

I keep seeing this thread lit up and I keep being disappointed.

I think the "news" ended like 8 pages ago. Anyone heard any substantive rumors about any conference moves lately? Seems like this is all smoke and no pancake so far.

 

[HokieGhost]

I keep seeing this thread lit up and I keep being disappointed.

I think the "news" ended like 8 pages ago. Anyone heard any substantive rumors about any conference moves lately? Seems like this is all smoke and no pancake so far.

And a bunch of idiotic comparisons of conferences to girls.

Can't wait for the season to start.

 

[Sleepy T]

It doesn't really help the ACC to dominate it but to lose BCS bowls. For VT (or any team) to be a real asset to the ACC, they also have to win their OOC games.

VT hasn't done well in BCS games. They're playing in them which is more than FSU and Miami can say, but ultimately they have a lot of the ACC's losses when people wave the ACC's record in BCS games like a bloody shirt.

Ehh. I guess I see your point(s). I guess my take is that if FSU and Miami aren't good enough to win their division (much less conference) most of the time, yet VT wins the ACC and loses the BCS..what does that say about those programs.

When Miami, VT, and BC came in, Miami was supposed to be the team who resurrected the ACC into a power..but VT and (especially) BC were afterthoughts to a degree. Not saying I am ready to jump ship..and yes, VT has stunk it up in some big games..but VT has done more for the ACC (talking strictly football) than the ACC has done for VT..just my take...We are keeping the conference afloat and are at least in the NCG conversation in some years..

 

[VTscores]

"but VT has done more for the ACC (talking strictly football) than the ACC has done for VT..just my take...We are keeping the conference afloat and are at least in the NCG conversation in some years.."

I don't really agree with that.

I think VT is an asset to the ACC, but I think the ACC is better for VT than the Big East was. VT was on the verge of having a solid basketball team with Greenberg, and I think you can credit the ACC with that. Also, VT has received the ACC slot in BCS bowls, as well as an at-large spot. Don't sell the ACC short in terms of opportunities that it has provided VT.

I think it has been a mutually beneficial arrangement.

 

[Rocky]

.We are keeping the conference afloat and are at least in the NCG conversation in some years..

I've seen two articles in the last week that put VT in the NC mix for next year.

 

[Sleepy T]

I don't really agree with that.

I think VT is an asset to the ACC, but I think the ACC is better for VT than the Big East was. VT was on the verge of having a solid basketball team with Greenberg, and I think you can credit the ACC with that. Also, VT has received the ACC slot in BCS bowls, as well as an at-large spot. Don't sell the ACC short in terms of opportunities that it has provided VT.

I think it has been a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Oh I agree to that as well. You missed the part up there^^^that said (talking strictly football).

I still say that the ACC has benefited more from VT, Than VT has vice versa from a football standpoint. They have gotten a huge TV market (which has boosted the ratings and $$$ in that market, helping to pave the way for a better TV deal), fans show up at Lane in flocks, people get excited about VT football. Who else gets that excited about football in the ACC?? I will give you Clemson and maybe FSU..no oone else. Hell, Miami can't fill half of their seats at home. Same goes for MOST other schools in the ACC (I guess I can give MD and BC a bit of a pass because they are in pro-towns..not Da U though..).

Living in the footprint of the ACC has saved lots of travel dollars, I will give you that. But as far as competition goes, the ACC hasn't been much better than the Big East has been. The Big East also has a de-facto slot in A BCS game (not necessarily one in particular). Also, VT got the at-large bid to the Sugar this year because THEY are VT..and the fans travel well, not because they are in the ACC. The BCS doesn't give a damn what conference you are in..they have proved that time and time again. They care about who is bringing the most $$ and how many people are watching the boob-tube.

I am not saying the Big East is better than the ACC, or was better for VT. I am not an ACC hater..not at all. I understand we wanted to be in this conference for 50 years, I understand it is good for Olympic sports (which I don't really care much about personally) from a travel and $$$ perspective. I get all that. But when talking College Foozball, I don't think we should have to settle for any less than we deserve. We have held up to our end of the deal (much more than the rest of the ACC). If the UVA's and MD's and everyone else can't just step their game up a little bit to make the ACC a little more relevant, why should we wait around for them to become relevant football teams, while FSU, Clemson, and whoever else jumps ship for a better long term option..

 

[Camfantasy]

And a bunch of idiotic comparisons of conferences to girls.

Can't wait for the season to start.

You old farts need to gain a sense of humor.

 

[bchampy]

And what does that have to do with the other 10 teams in the conference? If Alabama and LSU want to pound their chest about being in a bogus NCG, then so be it, but for all the fans from Georgia or Florida or any other SEC school, they are just riding coat tails it's all just bullshit. Like 46 said, I'd rather take pride in my own school and the accomplishments that they have as opposed to some other team just because they are in my conference.

 

[bigesse16]

There's a lot of merit to bigesse16's analysis, though VT is already hooked up with the ACC. She's just not taking care of herself the way we'd like.

Yeah my metaphor with the ACC is ACC/FSU. I think the ACC is taking care of itself, but doing a terrible job of promoting itself. I think the Syracuse and Pitt moves were very good, probably the best it could do. The problem is that FSU (who is the poster child of the ACC) hasn't taken care of itself and the ACC is suffering as a result. And FSU feels that the ACC paying enough attention to FSU, which could cause the conference to crumbel.

 

[MattB4VT]

If the ACC was good at football, cared about football, and was going to allow us to be relevant long term, I wouldn't hate the ACC.

And the whole argument about travel costs and shit is so stupid. I played an Olympic sport in college for VT. We traveled to penn state, u of Louisville, university of Kentucky, tennessee, Atlanta, fort lauderdale, Ohio state, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and others. We were on a bus for each and all of those trips. We have future trips planned to U Florida, fsu, etc. the distance doesn't matter because they're all hotel trips, and they're all on a bus. Even the meets at unc, Marylandd, wvu wtc are overnight trips, so money isn't saved.

Also, the sec is either level, or much better at every Olympic sport.... Sec has 9 national titles this year. Prob gonna get baseball, so that would be 10 and a sweep of all 3 major sports. Acc has 3... Comprised of women's rowing, Field hockey, and men's soccer. Many major schools dont even have 1, 2, or in some case, any of those 3 sports.

 

[Rocco]

Ehh. I guess I see your point(s). I guess my take is that if FSU and Miami aren't good enough to win their division (much less conference) most of the time, yet VT wins the ACC and loses the BCS..what does that say about those programs.

When Miami, VT, and BC came in, Miami was supposed to be the team who resurrected the ACC into a power..but VT and (especially) BC were afterthoughts to a degree. Not saying I am ready to jump ship..and yes, VT has stunk it up in some big games..but VT has done more for the ACC (talking strictly football) than the ACC has done for VT..just my take...We are keeping the conference afloat and are at least in the NCG conversation in some years..

In the last 15 years, the two best things to happen to VT:

1) Mike Vick;
2) Moving to the ACC.

Whatever #3 is, it's not even close. I try to stay out of this b/c I didn't go to VT so I don't have any sort of connection to the program except through athletics, but VT has benefited athletically and academically from moving to the ACC. I say this as someone who grew up in VA in the late 80s and early/mid 90s when VT's football team was nothing and their college was a safety school that kids went to when they couldn't get into UVA but no one really wanted to be stuck in Blacksburg. That isn't the case now thanks to those 2 things I mentioned. People here don't seem to grasp how good VT has it in the ACC right now and how disadvantaged they'd be from moving to the SEC.

If the ACC implodes and VT has to move, so be it, but it shouldn't be something VT strives for and it will be a tragedy should it happen.

 

[Rocco]

The idea that the ACC doesn't care about football is a canard. UNC dumped a ton of money into upgrading Kenan and hiring Butch. Why do that if they don't care? Clemson is paying Dabo and their coaches significant money. Wake Forest is paying Jim Grobe $2M. Maryland drove off an alum and a guy who turned around their program because he didn't win enough. If they didn't care about football why not keep a guy around who every 2-3 years will win 8 games? Georgia Tech is paying Paul Johnson >$2M a year.

 

[bigesse16]

If the ACC was good at football, cared about football, and was going to allow us to be relevant long term, I wouldn't hate the ACC.

And the whole argument about travel costs and shit is so stupid. I played an Olympic sport in college for VT. We traveled to penn state, u of Louisville, university of Kentucky, tennessee, Atlanta, fort lauderdale, Ohio state, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and others. We were on a bus for each and all of those trips. We have future trips planned to U Florida, fsu, etc. the distance doesn't matter because they're all hotel trips, and they're all on a bus. Even the meets at unc, Marylandd, wvu wtc are overnight trips, so money isn't saved.

Also, the sec is either level, or much better at every Olympic sport.... Sec has 9 national titles this year. Prob gonna get baseball, so that would be 10 and a sweep of all 3 major sports. Acc has 3... Comprised of women's rowing, Field hockey, and men's soccer. Many major schools dont even have 1, 2, or in some case, any of those 3 sports.

The ACC hasn't been good, but I disagree that it's the ACC's fault that it hasn't been good. I think it could do more and I think Swofford should go, but the ACC hasn't been a bad conference. The problem is that its two most marketable teams have fallen on their face as of late.

 

[Hokie200proof]

The idea that the ACC doesn't care about football is a canard. UNC dumped a ton of money into upgrading Kenan and hiring Butch. Why do that if they don't care? Clemson is paying Dabo and their coaches significant money. Wake Forest is paying Jim Grobe $2M. Maryland drove off an alum and a guy who turned around their program because he didn't win enough. If they didn't care about football why not keep a guy around who every 2-3 years will win 8 games? Georgia Tech is paying Paul Johnson >$2M a year.

Those are all good points... for Matt to say the ACC doesn't care about football is just oversimplifying the matter.

I think what he means to say is, relative to the SEC, the ACC doesn't care about football nearly as much... but that's only because SEC admins/schools/towns/fans support their programs with the fervor and unquestioned loyalty commonly found in the most dangerous cults. The ACC cares... we just won't self-immolate to prove it...




like most of the SEC will.

 

[Taz_Hokie]

Strike a nerve there Champy?

 

[hunzworth]

The idea that the ACC doesn't care about football is a canard. UNC dumped a ton of money into upgrading Kenan and hiring Butch. Why do that if they don't care? Clemson is paying Dabo and their coaches significant money. Wake Forest is paying Jim Grobe $2M. Maryland drove off an alum and a guy who turned around their program because he didn't win enough. If they didn't care about football why not keep a guy around who every 2-3 years will win 8 games? Georgia Tech is paying Paul Johnson >$2M a year.

All good points about how each individual university cares about their football program! But there is nothing there to show that swofford or the rest of the "brass" in the ACC care about football.

 

[Sleepy T]

In the last 15 years, the two best things to happen to VT:

1) Mike Vick;
2) Moving to the ACC.

Whatever #3 is, it's not even close. I try to stay out of this b/c I didn't go to VT so I don't have any sort of connection to the program except through athletics, but VT has benefited athletically and academically from moving to the ACC. I say this as someone who grew up in VA in the late 80s and early/mid 90s when VT's football team was nothing and their college was a safety school that kids went to when they couldn't get into UVA but no one really wanted to be stuck in Blacksburg. That isn't the case now thanks to those 2 things I mentioned. People here don't seem to grasp how good VT has it in the ACC right now and how disadvantaged they'd be from moving to the SEC.

If the ACC implodes and VT has to move, so be it, but it shouldn't be something VT strives for and it will be a tragedy should it happen.

I agree with alot you Rocco, and many others have said ^^^. I don't think VT is striving for it, and maybe they shouldn't be, but I think at some point it may be inevitable. I don't think VT should feel bad either if/when that time comes. I am sure VT, along with whoever else bolts will forever be known as the teams that killed the ACC... I don't have any connection to the program either, other than being a fan. I am not questioning that VT has benefited in many many ways by being in the ACC, I am just simply stating that at this juncture, VT IS the posterchild of the ACC and that it is the only program that has consistently kept it from being an absolute laughing stock (throw in Clemson, GT, BC, and FSU with some good years here and there). Half of America already thinks that the Big East is a better football conference, and I don't, but honestly, they aren't far off.

 

[MattB4VT]

I haven't said that VT hasn't benefited from the move to the ACC. The colonies benefited from being tied to England as well for a time. We need to do what's best for us long term. and if that means pissing off a few redcoats, or in this case, carolina blue coats, then so be it.