Realignment Thread

[Rocco]

I am extremely envious of the VT/UVA rivalry now since it doesn't take up an OOC game. Clemson has the unenviable task of trying to have a decent OOC schedule with only one away game slot, as having seven home games is necessary to fund the athletic department. Swofford is a real asshole for putting us, FSU, and GT (to a much lesser extent) in this position...

Swofford wasn't the only one. Last I checked the entire conference thought expansion was a good idea.

 

[hoosrise]

If Notre Dame was in our league, all would be good. But with their own Tv deal, I don't see how it happens.

 

[hoosrise]

Bracket A:

VT
Miami
UVA
ND
MD
Pitt
Syr
BC


Bracket B:

GT
Clemson
FSU
Wake
UNC
Duke
NCS
?

 

[Ballboy534]

Swofford wasn't the only one. Last I checked the entire conference thought expansion was a good idea.

If you think Clemson and FSU were in favor of adding two more northern schools with middling to irrelevant football programs, you're out of the loop, sir. The only reason the votes were unanimous was to conceal any back room deals that may or may not have been in progress. No sense in tipping your hand if you're bluffing...

FTR, I do not think Clemson or FSU are going anywhere unless the SEC were to come calling (highly unlikely).

 

[hunzworth]

Bracket A:

VT
Miami
UVA
ND
MD
Pitt
Syr
BC


Bracket B:

GT
Clemson
FSU
Wake
UNC
Duke
NCS
?

Bracket A looks pretty crappy to me.

 

[Ballboy534]

Bracket A looks pretty crappy to me.

They both look pretty crappy to me...

 

[hunzworth]

i'd much rather be in a division with you guys, GT, florida state, UNC, and NCst

than with UM, ND, and a bunch of afterthoughts.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Pitt to Coastal

Cuse to Atlantic

It has already been decided, I am pretty sure.

 

[VTscores]

Pitt to Coastal

Cuse to Atlantic

It has already been decided, I am pretty sure.

I hope so.

The brackets suggested above are B.S.

 

[hunzworth]

Pitt to Coastal

Cuse to Atlantic

It has already been decided, I am pretty sure.

I hope so.

The brackets suggested above are B.S.

it has. I really dont know what those brackets are all about, i just thought they looked pretty one sided.

 

[hoosrise]

In looking at it afterwards, I think you guys are right. I think the deal will be a lot like it is now, with one permanent "rival" from the other side. Miami and FSU have to be in other divisions, probably NCS and UNC too. I guess the main thing in this hypo is the inclusion of Notre Dame. It would be a ton of fun to have the Irish home and home, and I figured that they would have to have BC, Pitt and Syracuse as divisional games. I dunno. It's all BS anyway until the powers that be speak, and assumes that ND comes in. That still leaves a slot.

 

[hokiegrad]

it has. I really dont know what those brackets are all about, i just thought they looked pretty one sided.

Looks like hoosrise was trying to show what he'd like to see if ND joined. Not how things will look after this round of bringing in Syracuse and Pitt.

 

[Ballboy534]

Looks like hoosrise was trying to show what he'd like to see if ND joined. Not how things will look after this round of bringing in Syracuse and Pitt.

Yep; I really wasn't a fan of expansion at all, especially since it meant bringing in more mediocrity... now with the 9 game schedule my team is forced to cancel great home and homes with Oklahoma State and after the 2013/2014 series with UGA, we will likely never play a historic rival again in the regular season.

 

[hokiegrad]

Yep; I really wasn't a fan of expansion at all, especially since it meant bringing in more mediocrity... now with the 9 game schedule my team is forced to cancel great home and homes with Oklahoma State and after the 2013/2014 series with UGA, we will likely never play a historic rival again in the regular season.

forced? Please...

As for the home game thing... it's not like Clemson, FSU, and GT's rivals are slouches. They are not killing their schedules to play those games. This should really have no impact on your ability to play a good schedule including teams like Ok State. Just schedule the home-home with them to offset the home-home with your rival... i.e., play at OSU at Clemson in the year that you play at SC. Then of course add the "we play you to come to us" game that every major school (incl. Clemson) already does to get to 7 home games. That would be a great schedule, incidentally... 11 major-conf games. If you'd rather drop Ok State to play two cupcakes (the real reason, not this "I need 7 home games" BS), of course that's up to you. Just don't pretend you don't have the option of playing a harder schedule.

As for the "pitt and syracuse" aren't football schools crap... No, they're not on the level Clemson, VT, and FSU are this year. Then again, neither was Clemson until last year. They've had a recent downturn, while Clemson has had a recent upturn. That kind of thing shakes out in the wash over time. We're thinking long term, not just the next 2 years, right? I expect Pitt to get back to being stout pretty quickly. Syracuse I'm not sure about, but they've got potential, and a lot of history, a decent fanbase, etc. that should help them rebuild, besides the move to a better conf. I was never in favor of the ACC taking BC, but I don't see a great argument against Syracuse. The notion that they added Syracuse and Pitt for basketball is complete crap. The ACC would not have expanded at all if this was about basketball. And where else was the ACC going to go for better football options, anyway?

 

[Ballboy534]

forced? Please...

As for the home game thing... it's not like Clemson, FSU, and GT's rivals are slouches. They are not killing their schedules to play those games. This should really have no impact on your ability to play a good schedule including teams like Ok State. Just schedule the home-home with them to offset the home-home with your rival... i.e., play at OSU at Clemson in the year that you play at SC. Then of course add the "we play you to come to us" game that every major school (incl. Clemson) already does to get to 7 home games. That would be a great schedule, incidentally... 11 major-conf games. If you'd rather drop Ok State to play two cupcakes (the real reason, not this "I need 7 home games" BS), of course that's up to you. Just don't pretend you don't have the option of playing a harder schedule.

As for the "pitt and syracuse" aren't football schools crap... No, they're not on the level Clemson, VT, and FSU are this year. Then again, neither was Clemson until last year. They've had a recent downturn, while Clemson has had a recent upturn. That kind of thing shakes out in the wash over time. We're thinking long term, not just the next 2 years, right? I expect Pitt to get back to being stout pretty quickly. Syracuse I'm not sure about, but they've got potential, and a lot of history, a decent fanbase, etc. that should help them rebuild, besides the move to a better conf. I was never in favor of the ACC taking BC, but I don't see a great argument against Syracuse. The notion that they added Syracuse and Pitt for basketball is complete crap. The ACC would not have expanded at all if this was about basketball. And where else was the ACC going to go for better football options, anyway?

I'll take advice on revenue and how big of role football plays from those in the know, not joe schmo from SportsHoopla

If you legitimately and honestly believe that it isn't necessary for a major conference football team (not named Texas) to have seven home games to support the schools Olympic schools, you should do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth.

 

[Ballboy534]

Here's an article citing the rationale for axing the series with OSU and Ole Miss: Clemson cancels Oklahoma State, Ole Miss series - NCAA Football - Sporting News

 

[hokiegrad]

I'll take advice on revenue and how big of role football plays from those in the know, not joe schmo from SportsHoopla

If you legitimately and honestly believe that it isn't necessary for a major conference football team (not named Texas) to have seven home games to support the schools Olympic schools, you should do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth.

I never said you don't need 7 home games. I attempted to explain that you can have 7 home games and still play teams like Ok State. But turns out I didn't think that through enough. That's only true for the years you play 5 conf home games.

year n:
away games: 4 conf, SC
home games: 5 conf, Ok State, cupcake

year n+1:
away games: 5 conf, Ok State
home games: 4 conf, SC, cupcake

That leaves you only 6 home games every other year. So yeah, that doesn't work.

 

[sparko]

If you legitimately and honestly believe that it isn't necessary for a major conference football team (not named Texas) to have seven home games to support the schools Olympic schools, you should do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth.

Highest Net Income: ACC Athletic Departments

Try .. Virginia Tech. Most seasons we don't play 7 home games now. Aside from the Clemson debacle(s) last season, we have OWNED the ACC. We have a positive net income (second in the ACC only to UVA). We spend less than every department in the ACC, other than Wake (no surprise there), GT, and NC State (barely). Simple fiscal responsibility. You spend less than you make. Clemson's athletic department should know way ahead of time when they're gonna be short a home game and be able to account for it. Ask your athletic department to try operating within a budget and to quit pretending that they're in the SEC with a blank checkbook.

 

[Ballboy534]

Highest Net Income: ACC Athletic Departments

Try .. Virginia Tech. Most seasons we don't play 7 home games now. Aside from the Clemson debacle(s) last season, we have OWNED the ACC. We have a positive net income (second in the ACC only to UVA). We spend less than every department in the ACC, other than Wake (no surprise there), GT, and NC State (barely). Simple fiscal responsibility. You spend less than you make. Clemson's athletic department should know way ahead of time when they're gonna be short a home game and be able to account for it. Ask your athletic department to try operating within a budget and to quit pretending that they're in the SEC with a blank checkbook.

You can't simply look at the success of a football team; in terms of the Olympic and non-revenue sports, they have to view the football program as the "cash cow." Otherwise, they would not have an opportunity to have any partial (much less full) scholarships, competitive facilities, knowledgeable coaches, and would likely end up elsewhere. Very few schools outside the Dukes and Kentuckys rely on any sport(s) other than football. Take a look at some of the graphs in this article. You might surprised to see which schools outspent the others in regards to football..

 

[sparko]

So where do the other non football expenses come from? Vt is able to pull a significant profit yet their net income from football and total AD spending was relatively the same as clemson and their profit from basketball was relatively the same...sounds like they're too much money on Olympic sports to me....reduce spending equals balanced budget? It would be nice if vt could have works class non revenue sports like the Stanfors, FSUs, and Notre Dames of the world, but the fact is they don't have the money to do so, and neither does Clemson