One game closer to the SEC/ACC challenge...I wrote this in the comment section on a random post about a month ago, I still want this to happen:
I've been thinking about it from the SEC standpoint. Why would they want to do this? Most teams in the SEC pad their out of conference schedules with FCS and LOLUVA-level programs because of the grueling nature of SEC football. At first glance, most teams would balk at the idea of giving up a guaranteed home game against a bad opponent in exchange of a home game with ACC opponent every other year. If I were an SEC coach, I wouldn't like giving up my flexibility.
Then I realized how this could make sense from an SEC standpoint: money.
Theoretically, the ACC covers the following markets that the SEC doesn't: New York (Syracuse), Boston (Boston College), Washington DC (VT/UVA), Pittsburgh (PITT) & Charlotte/R-D (UNC, Duke, WF, NCST). That represents the #1, #6, #9, #23 & #27 markets in the United States.
If you make the SEC matchups into neutral site games (instead of home games for the ACC), the SEC would expand their influence into the north and make a ton of money in the process.
Here's what I'd like to see happen (Made a couple of changes based on comments below):
1) Keep the current ACC/SEC matchups. That includes:
Georgia vs. Georgia Tech
Florida vs. Florida State
Kentucky vs. Louisville
South Carolina vs. Clemson
Vanderbilt vs. Wake Forest
2) Create the following matchups based on market size:
Syracuse vs. LSU (Neutral Site: Metlife Stadium)
Boston College vs. Alabama (Neutral Site: Gillette Stadium)
Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee (Neutral Site: Bristol)
Pittsburgh vs. Auburn
UNC vs. Texas A&M & NC State vs. Mizzou (Neutral Site: Bank of America Stadium)
3) Fill-in other matchups that make most geographic sense and/or create the most compelling matchups:
UVA vs. Ole Miss
Duke vs. Arkansas
Miami vs. Miss State
Comments
I'd rather a VT and Tennesse matchup. I'd love to have an actual rivalry with a team that has a chance at beating us (but hopefully doesn't anyways).
So A&M doesn't have a chance at beating us?
I like to think so. Although, the other point I was making is that there is already a rivalry with Tennesse, at least if you've ever been to the Bristol area, and while I'm sure we'd have good games with A&M it's not a rivalry game, and I think trying to make it would be one would be forced. Not as forced as trying to make Boston College a rivalry game, but who would be dumb enough to make us play them every year anyways. #GOACC
I'm with MVhokie69 on this..I'd rather play UT every year than aTm. I know that there are a lot of similarities between aTm and VT but it makes more sense to me to have a geographical rival (UT)...and let's see how this whole "Battle at Bristol" turns out..if it's not a complete dud I could see it having success for years to come. The VT-UT rivalry could potentially become one of the most revered 'new' rivalries in the country and could be a huge draw for both leagues
Battle at Bristol - possibly a complete dud? Do you mean the actual play on the field or the crowd? UT has already sold 40,000 tickets and asking for more. Don't know the numbers from VT ticket sales yet, but potentially 80,000 seats may already be sold and we are still over two years away and the public has not even had a chance to buy a ticket.
I'm not predicting it to be a complete dud. I think it will be awesome..but we don't know until it happens. If it's an event that the organizers think they can do every year and be successful then I'm hopeful it turns into a rivalry.
I think it would be good to have a yearly rivalry with UT, but make the "Battle at Bristol" every 4 years.
That way, it's not a huge burden on the track to completely demolish and rebuild the infield every August/September, the excitement of a game in that venue doesn't wear off because it's not a yearly event, and you can still use it as a major recruiting tool.
Think of the power/advantage of being able to tell all of your recruits that they are guaranteed to play in front of the biggest crowd to ever attend ANY football game EVER.
I would be fine with that.
Every 4 years would mean that one team is getting 2 home games per cycle, I would go with a 3 or 5 year cycle.
I think VT vs A&M is the most interesting match up. Both programs have huge military traditions, both have a large focus on stem programs, both have the two of the largest ring traditions in the country, both have a similar student atmosphere. Having a brother that goes to A&M while I am going to Tech, I find it fascinating how similar these two schools are. Thats the match up I would like to see.
Like I just said to Koastal Kings too, Tennesse is much more of a natural rival than A&M. I do think they would be the second best choice in SEC for the reasons you stated, but many people in southwest Virginia already have a verbal rivalry with Tennesse which is part of the reason the Battle at Bristol is so hyped up already. Geography plays into Tennesse being a better rivalry in my mind.
An aTm rivalry would probably be good for alumni for the reasons stated, not so much for students. I would think you'd want permanent rivalries to be somewhat close. One of the best football weekends as a student was 2011 when I stayed with a High School friend who went to UVa for the game. There's no way we would have been able to do that with aTm. UT on the other hand would probably be easier than UVa since we won't have to deal with Thanksgiving and the two schools already dislike each other.
aTm would be great for a string of home and homes every x number of years though.
Catch 22 of this entire argument is rivalries and geographical proximity when talking SEC vs ACC. The ones that already play each other are because of how close they were but when you look at the rest of the two conferences, you just start getting farther and farther apart distance wise. The closest opponent for Syracuse would possibly be Tennessee since Kentucky and Vanderbilt already have established rivalries. I get that they are arranging a home and home with LSU but that's a one off, one that we have already played as well.
If you look at the last fifteen years, the team we have played the most consistently in the SEC is Alabama. Its been fairly one sided other than the Music City Bowl back in 1998 but who else in the ACC has played them as often as we have?
Duke? Didn't they have a home and home with Bama a couple years ago?
would aTm be an interesting rival? Sure it would! Does it make the most sense though? I don't think so. If aTm was in Tenn and not Tex then it would be a logical choice as a rival, but it's just too far away.
I would love to see this game but I think one of the key components to getting this to a rivalry would cost more than it would pay. I think that to have this be a significant rivalry you would have to have the Corps/Highty Tighties travel, and the cost to do that at 1000+ students could be more significant than our costs for a bowl game. Seat the Corps similar to the Army Navy type games. The logistics would be the stopping point more than likely.
Ole, not Old. They'd probably get mad about that. I've been rooting for this for years, especially with the new playoff system.
I would just like to see an sec team on the schedule every year!
I would like to see 8 on the schedule every year
I see what you did there....
There's no question where I would like to see us
I would rather see 9 conference games a year.
See signature.
I think VT vs A&M is the most interesting match up. Both programs have huge military traditions, both have a large focus on stem programs, both have the two of the largest ring traditions in the country, both have a similar student atmosphere. Having a brother that goes to A&M while I am going to Tech, I find it fascinating how similar these two schools are. Thats the match up I would like to see.
Double post.
The only issue I have with the match-ups is NO MORE FEDEX FIELD GAMES!!!!!!
Even Panther stadium is better.
I would be hard pressed to go to another FedEx Field game. I would prefer M&T in Baltimore. Hell, I would prefer falling down RFK over FedEx.
Wake-Vanderbilt already takes place annually, so Arkansas-Wake and Vanderbilt-Duke would need to be shuffled.
VT vs aTm... way too forced. If you have to add a disclaimer or explain why it should be a rivalry, its not a rivalry. And then to have it at the 'neutral site' of Washington DC? lol, thats like saying Cowboys Stadium would be a neutral site with aTm playing.
We're a football power in the ACC. We get first pick on our rival, along with FSU, Clemson, ND (should they join), Miami, and GT. We'll get an annual matchup with Tennessee in the true neutral site of Bristol, and it will rock harder than just about any other cross-conference rivalry in the country.
But but don't we have a S-ECU team on the schedule every year?? Calm down people... Ducks and runs
Here's my problem, I love the idea...but it's never going to happen. I think your reasoning is flawed. "Markets" isn't really a thing anymore, certainly not to the SEC. The SEC basically owns ESPN, they are a national college football conference. They don't need to play Syracuse to get exposure in the NYC market, every TV tuned to ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU at 7PM on a saturday is going to be showcasing SEC teams. IN every market - Boston, NYC, DC.
Markets only matter when, say, VT is playing Wake on WDCA at Noon. That's not an issue for the SEC.
So I posted this in another thread about an ACC/SEC challege, but I'll repost here.
Yes I know it will never happen, but I'd like to see annual top to bottom conference challenges (think Big 10/ACC basketball challenge) between BCS conferences on a rotating basis.
Five 'BCS' conferences, 14 teams each. Last year's 1st place teams play each other, 2nd place team play each other, etc.
There's no way that placement pairing would fly. That would mean that half the top teams in the country would have early losses. It might work if you let the conferences decide on match ups, but that would essentially defeat the purpose since the Top teams would want the bottom feeders and some middle of the road guys.
Well, I've acknowledged that this would never happen, but one can still dream right?
But, I would argue that with the amount of player turnover from year to year the previous number 1 isn't necessarily still number 1. Alabama and VT essentially did this in 2009, and Alabama earned their way to a national title.
Note that I'm also of the belief that teams in general (specifically VT!!!) should play more home-and-home's against other high profile teams. There's no bigger challenge in college football than playing a ranked team on the road (except for perhaps a playing a rival on the road, but I digress), this is the best way for a team to improve. Pete Carroll's USC teams showed no fear when scheduling, and they eventually conquered every obstacle that came their way. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I would love to see Frank/Whit schedule that way.