Now that University of Maryland and Rutgers have officially joined the Big Ten, college football analysts have begun pondering the next schools likely to switch conference in the near future. Despite Techs refusal to leave the ACC, many see the Hokies as a perfect fit in the SEC.
In a recent article, SEC reporter Greg Ostendorf and college football analyst Edward Aschoff examined the two schools that could potentially be a great fit in the SEC:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/84783/take-two-possible-sec-expans...
Aschoff argued that, Virginia Tech has the atmosphere and culture that would make the transition over the SEC extremely easy. SEC fans have to be dying to check out a game in Blacksburg. And it's another market to tap into once you get Washington, D.C. secured.
Would Virginia Tech be a good fit and benefit from a move to the SEC?
Comments
I think we'd suffer from being so geographically distant from the rest of the conference. We fought for decades to get into the ACC - no way I see us moving again.
I disagree, compare avg distance:
Coastal + BC=415 miles
SEC East=426 miles (we'd also play a team in the SEC West, not included)
We'd still play UVA every year. The close proximity games with the NC teams would be missed but they're nothing to get pumped up for anyway and I'm sure they'd be scheduled OOC often (ECU). UF. USCe, UGA and UT coming to Blacksburg every couple years would only solidify Lane's status and help recruiting tremendously. Blacksburg is in the southeast, we fit in culturally much more with SEC than northeast or BIG schools.
If the ACC were to switch Clemson for GT and make our crossover opponent UL, I'd be happy to stay in ACC but I'm all for jumping to the SEC given the chance.
Your mileage comparison here is only good for football. Its the non revenue sports where the distance would be significantly higher in the SEC for travel purposes. That would cost VT significantly more annually than the current ACC slate that has eight of the opponents within 400 miles and GT is 410. In the SEC its only four within 400 miles with Vanderbilt at 414.
The average travel distance for us in the SEC would be 581 miles versus 402 in the ACC. Thats only in straight road mileage, it doesnt account for how many of these destinations would require air travel, then renting buses once at the destination. The costs would be exorbitant to switch conferences for our non revenue sports compared to what they are now in the ACC.
Simply compare WVU trading travel to South Florida for travel to TCU.
Agree with your points. I was only addressing whether we are a geographic fit for the SEC. Unless we want to compete in VHSL, we won't find a better fit travel-wise than the ACC. Other than a little inconvenience, the higher travel cost only hurts if our revenue in the SEC doesn't cover it. Someone smarter than me can figure that out. It would be cool to see how aTm and Mizzou's expenses were affected. College Station is a 5 1/2 hr drive to their closest SEC member in BR and the next 3 closest are 7-10 hrs away. Mizzou's closest is Arkansas at 6 1/2 hrs. We're a better fit geographically than aTm, Mizzou and at least as good or better than LSU and UK if we're looking at travel.
I would like to see VT compete against the best. But with the new playoff system, it might be better to roll the dice trying to run the table in the ACC and get a marquee win under our belt to pad the resume (anOSU for example?). FSU has used that formula to the tune of 3 national titles. If we join the SEC, we immedietly become the short-stack joining the feature table. And to be painfully honest, we don't have the buzz and momentum that Texas A&M enjoyed falling into a player like Manziel, having a recruiting hotbed in Texas that also coincided with Texas' decline and the transition from Mack Brown, and a hot coaching name like Sumlin to use as a springboard. I think any transition would include some tough sledding for years and ,if we don't gain any traction, we could see some serious regression and maybe even a slip into irrelevence.
This comment is on the money.
If it were the BCS days then yeah SEC makes sense. Even with a weak schedule you get bumped for just being SEC. But with the playoffs we will be in a better position owning the ACC than surviving in the SEC.
I agree we should stay in the acc, but Missouri negates the sec transition comments. They never won the big 12 (made it to title game only once in last ten years?) And were sec east champion in year 2. And it's not like they are a traditional football powerhouse like Alabama or Texas, or even in a super fertile football recruiting state.
Missouri kinda fell into relevance this past year much like A&M if you look at it. The SEC East was bad this past year, and the only good team from the division (South Carolina) beat Missouri.
You know, I was pro SEC since I was posting on the old AOL boards 15+ years ago, and this is the first post that really made me pause. The FSU point is A-1. And the poker reference is apt, as well (as poker is to most things in life, but I digress). The timing of a move now is exactly like you say - short stack at the featured table - just horrendous. You have to play no limit hold'em to really understand that experience.
The good news is that we aren't moving anywhere just yet, and we have time to regroup and re-build our stack. Still, I think the SEC is going to be waiting at the final table, anyway. We might as well get used to going heads up with those guys as soon as possible. Keep scheduling them, keep working, keep building.
Battle of Bristol
Just enough with Alabama, I'll let you know when I'm ready for another swing at Saben, but its not now.
Joining the SEC would help the Hokies in recruiting. Great recruits like Korven, Jonathan Allen, Hand, Clark who want to play in the SEC would get the chance to play against the best and stay at home. In the long run, Tech would become a better team by having great preparation for high profile SEC games. I dont see it happening but it would be a WIN-WIN for Tech and the SEC.
What he said. We may not often win the East but we'd be contenders and the schedule and excitement would be so much greater than our ACC schedule.
Don't assume that just because VT is in the SEC, that those guys would choose the Hokies.
They could still choose Bama, or someone else. USC-e.
But we would land more than zero of them. How many? Who knows but I would bet we would see the number of in-state recruits signing out-of-state with a SEC school drop precipitously.
And we just lost a DE/DT over the weekend to UK of all schools. One of his positives for choosing UK was he would play against the best week in and week out. You couldn't convince me that our recruitng would take a nice bump.
As bad as Kentucky is, he probably would end up being a starter as soon as he stepped foot on campus. That wasn't happening in Blacksburg, and everyone here knows it.
It's possible that he would be an instant starter at UK and not here. But truth is, VT isn't chock full of DE talent as we now haven't taken a kid at DE that has stuck in what? 2 recruiting classes? And it's not like what we have in the 2 deep is 4 & 5 star talent top to bottom.
And UK's last couple classes have been near VT's, on paper, at least (one a few spots better, one a few behind). And they currently sit well ahead of our class so far this year. So, while I agree that he probably wouldn't be an early contributor at VT, actually no one will ever know now.
Lets not focus on who we didnt get but on who we got or are about to get. Good VT coaching will turn average players to stars and stars to superstars.
Personally, I don't care how many stars a guy has once he's arrived on campus. Just like how my HS GPA didn't matter once I went through all my postsecondary education.
Several teams consistently out-recruit us but end up less successful where it counts... on the field, in the standings, and during the postseason.
Well..most teams are more successful than us in the post season.
Depends on what you mean by "most." Are you talking about winning bowl games or getting to bowl games in general? The first, I can't argue against; the second, I most certainly can.
"In the postseason" meaning when we're actually IN the bowl games. At least, that's how I read it
Since I brought up the postseason, I should clarify that I was referring to getting there in general. I find it a waste of time to worry about Kentucky and UVA getting recruits over us if their teams are at home during Christmas break.
Do you think Coach Fondue uses that as a recruiting tool?
"Hey son, I know how important family is to you; if you come play for me here at LOLUVA I can personally guarantee that you will spend every Christmas at home with your family"
as a sidebar, I'm sure part of Dabo Swinny's motivation to win 6+ games each year is that doing so ensures that he'll get to spend Christmas with his team
Almost all the time when a recruit names an SEC school in his top list of schools and he doesn't come from an SEC state one of the things they mention as a positive about that school is that they are in the SEC.
$52 million exit fee + sacrificing all TV revenue from home games for 14 years = totally not worth joining the SEC for perception reasons. We'd be decimated, financially, for probably two decades. As said above, forget about being good in a trendy conference. Be the best in the ACC and this talk goes out the window. This topic was posted just a few days ago, and I still believe what I said there - the idea that VT should chase the "best" conference is foolish. Dominate in the ACC and in the marquee games and this talk becomes irrelevant. College football is cyclical; the SEC will eventually trend down while other conferences trend up.
What I've been told, with again no direct sources to link (which makes all my statements seem completely moot haha) is that the $50 million exit fee is really just a drop in the bucket when you think about it in the long run. With the athletic success the SEC has in so many sports, that money would be easily made back over time.
yeah but the ACC has a great deal of success in sports as well. I mean shit have you ever looked at the soccer standings....or whats soon to be the basketball rankings. Half-2/3 of the top 10 will be ACC schools. The ACC is a pretty dominant sports conference in all things not named football, and it just won the national championship when the SEC didnt win a single BCS bowl soooooooooooooooo i wouldnt tout the SEC's success in other sports as better than ours.
That doesn't matter, football makes money.
well, with Buzz taking over the BB program, a competitive ACC BB program can make some money also
i mean in some instances, but basketball can be a HUGE revenue sport. my roommate is from louisville and loves his louisville sports, and I've really been able to comprehend how much sports not named football can raise a ton of money for you. Yeah football definitely helps but its not like were #loluva level of football. Our program brings in a lot of money and that coupled with the money that the basketball program could potentially bring in playing ACC teams coupled with some money from other sports (however small it may be, it adds up) makes the ACC a very reasonable and happy conference to be in
Look at LOLUVA: #1 seed in mens basketball, made the finals of the College World Series.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to wash the taste of UVA-Compliment out of my mouth.
If Tech moves to the SEC, I still hope we keep playing LOLUVA every year and continue the beatdown.
Yer gonna need a donut about this big for that bad a taste.
You have to account for buying players new cars when you join the SEC though.
I feel that this would diminish the acquisition of buzz williams on the grounds that we are making a huge step to becoming relevant in ACC basketball. I know this is mainly talking about football but, in order for tech to make a conference change it would have to be LARGELY beneficial to football in order to make that happen without considering other sports. We could potentially have an equally as good basketball program and I think we'd rather stay in the ACC for that.
I know leaving the ACC is problematic from a finance perspective (and seriously...I think VT should have never agreed to the current terms of leaving ACC, college athletics is way to fluid and VT should have left itself an out so that it could pursue it's own best interest easier in the future), but I felt even when I was a student ('93-97) that VT would have been better off in the SEC.
And when the Big East was initially imploding I'd kind of hoped we'd miss out on the ACC so we'd basically be forced to the SEC.
And I have to think w/ SEC revenues, we could structure some deal even now to easily make the conference transition. Yeah, we'd take a hit financially in the short term and it might impact coaching hires/improvements/recruiting resources, but the long term payoff financially and recruiting wise in regards to football is just too big to pass up. Basketball could thrive in the SEC as well as it could in the ACC too.
At one point, I'd thought building a bigger north end expansion, get Lane to 75 or 80k capacity, and moving the football practice facilities somewhere else completely, along with SEC membership would have been great for us. VT could have found a site somewhere to build practice fields, indoor practice facility combined with basically a relocated Merryman Center.
I think Weaver was just too conservative and just plain didn't think big enough. I should have been AD! ;-)
With annual televised games against Bama, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Tech A&M, lane stadium would easily sold out 100K
Like West Virginia? Oh, wait....
Also, the few years prior to when we moved to the ACC, the SEC wasn't nearly on top of the world like it is now. That was the time of USC, the Big 12 (particularly Texas, Oklahoma, and to an extent Nebraska), and the Big Ten (Ohio State and Michigan). The SEC didn't get forced into our living rooms until maybe 2008.
Yeah but the SEC's marketing potential was always there for anyone to see. And to be honest, I just plain thought from an athletics/fan base standpoint, VT was a better fit culturally in the SEC. I still do, actually.
We were even at a better point competitively back then to go in and be able to do well initially. That 38-7 whipping of 'Bama after the 98 season showed that.
As much as I love Beamer, though, I will say the thing that contributed to VT's slide that most was Beamer's loyalty to the Not-Ready-for-Primetime-Spring Offensive Coaching regime. I think we'd have been better off making Kevin Rogers OC/QB coach. Stinespring's lines when he was O-line coach were actually pretty talented and good, IMHO. Who knows how long Rogers would have stuck around in that role, but I still think we'd have been better off.
Their marketing potential only realized itself once they started winning title after title. Before that, they weren't on anyone's radar, even when Auburn went undefeated in 2004. Imagine that... an undefeated SEC team being snubbed for a Big 12 team. We can't revise history now that we've seen what has happened. Could we have gone in and done well in '98? Sure, but it would have been a perfect storm, as the SEC was way down compared to now (several 2-3 loss champions). It's harder to crack that nut now.
I agree about the offensive slide though. Had we not had mobile QBs, there wouldn't have been as many of those 10-win seasons once we joined the ACC.
Unless some dominoes fall elsewhere in the ACC, I don't see us leaving anytime soon. But if the ACC for some reason starts to see schools leave, perhaps then would joining the SEC become a viable option.
That being said, I would like to invest in some sort of annual rivalry game with an SEC opponent, be it aTm or UT (maybe someone else?)
MY disgruntledness may be misplaced as I don't know the circumstances of his departure, but I gotta be honest to say that I would love to play against LSU and see Foster absolutely obliterate their OL
That 2007 visit to Death Valley still hurts.
I always hate posting stuff like this without names for sources, and take this with as much salt as you wish, but according to my dad's boss, who's on the VT Athletic Alumni Board (or something like that, I can't remember the exact name) Tech and NC State are in talks with the SEC to join the conference. The SEC wants them because it would open up new markets for them to tap in to. Again, I don't have a tweet to embed or an article to link, this is just what my dad was told by his boss, so I thought I'd pass it along
yep, #sources
but it's actually not hard to believe that VT has been approached by and talked to SEC in the past. In fact, I would suspect it has happened a number of times
From this third party source, Babcock thinks it would be a better long term financial decision, and Sands in all in for it. And if it's found to be the better decision, they'll try and get it done ASAP
I hope they have a source of money to tide us over after we break from the ACC, or maybe they make the SEC pay for it. interesting though
I really don't think the money is that big of an issue. We may look at $50 million and go "Damn, that would be crushing" but to a top tier college that money can be easily be paid
it's not the exit fee but the loss of TV revenue that is stipulated in the exit. If they have a work around for that then yah 50 million can be done
Well I am all for it, because I do believe competing against the best can only improve your product in-house
I wouldnt be surprised if the SEC wants Tech as a member. VT is an attractive school with great winning tradition, a profitable market, and loyal fan base. If the SEC seriously wants Tech, it should pay the $50 million fee for the Hokies .
The 50 million is chump change compared to the TV rights.
I don't have a deniable third party source, I just have the word of someone actually in the VT Athletic Department at an extremely high level. There is ZERO credence to any trace of interest in the SEC by VT. BOV, AD, President - everyone in power agrees that we are totally happy in the ACC, now and for decades to come. Of course, that doesn't matter during the dead zone of summer, when conference chatter seeps up from the drains on bored message boards.
There are so many conflicting reports about Tech joining or not joining the SEC. Wherever the Virginia Tech Hokies go, I will follow.
even if every word of that is true, it still doesn't refute what I Miss Tyrod posted... even if there was 0 interest in leaving the ACC, if the SEC calls and wants to talk I think VT would listen to what they had to say
Actually, it does refute it. But hey, no problems - it's summer, nothing to discuss except nearly every sport. So why not make up another fantasy conference realignment scenario that bears no resemblance to reality? You guys can enjoy driving the posts on this one up to about 200, until something real comes along. Have fun...
Keep in mind (I was in that office on that day) that when the ACC offer came, Weaver and staff had NO idea what was going on- it was WAY over their heads as in Governor and University President and apparently they were not sharing the info with the AD until it was a done deal.
Unless you have a direct quote or evidence along with a name from your #source, you saying you know someone doesn't refute someone else saying they know someone.
And this is a Virginia Tech website, what Virginia Tech sport is there to discuss that's currently ongoing?
Also, I may add that if you are so bothered by people having a discussion on a thread that's a topic that "bears no resemblance to reality", then you are 100% free to refrain from posting on it.
dude, you seriously need to relax when someone else is opposing your comment.
If you're not furthering the discussion then there's no point replying. Just because he believes what he believes doesn't mean it's a personal attack on you. Both of you are #sources and really that means jack and shit, but I'm happy to listen to both of your #sources and give you that respect. Save the school yard passive aggressive statements for somewhere else though
Well it really doesn't matter what you say or what I say, neither one of us has anything other than the "words" we claim to hear from people high up in the athletic department. Your "words" hold no more substance than mine, I just thought I'd pass along what I'd heard
See my signature.
#inWhitWeTrust
THIS! Whit will make sure we are where we need to be.
college football is cyclical...by the time we got into the SEC the ACC would be the dominant conference...I think we're better off sitting through the storm...we'll come out ahead in the long run if we just stay put
As for the SEC making us more money, this year the difference between the SEC and the ACC payout per school was $100K ($20.8M ACC vs $20.9M SEC) so paying a $50+ million buyout doesn't nearly make sense. Why do you think Maryland is fighting the buyout so hard? They were already broke, which led them to shutter nine varsity sports, and with the $50 mil buyout, even with Big10 money, they would be in the negative for almost the first ten years in the BIG10 to be able to pay back the buyout bonds they would likely have to obtain. There is talk that they would have to shutter all varsity sports except for football and basketball and then take Title IX into account.
Are things changing financially in the SEC with them starting their own network? Sure, but the money is not so dramatically better that it makes sense to pay a $50 mil buyout.
The SEC wouldn't want to call until 2027 regardless, because that's when we regain our individual television rights that are currently signed over to the ACC until that time. Expanding into a "new market" doesn't do you any good if you cant televise it. The SEC would either have to negotiate an additional buyout for the TV rights or just not be able to include us until 2027.
This comment should pretty much end the whole discussion. Everyone says it will be soooo much more money, but right now, the actual checks do not look that different. With the SEC network (isn't that already in place, it's called ESPN) the gap may increase noticeably, but not that significantly. It definitely will not be enough to overcome the loss of television rights until 2027. Besides, television rights get re-negotiated all of the time. History tells us that the SEC will not be on top indefinitely, so we shouldn't plan for ourselves as though they will be.
I may be wrong, but I think I remember reading that Maryland (and Rutgers) do not even get full payouts from the Big Ten Network for years. They get a small amount that increases gradually until they are full members, so they cannot even count on that money helping them if the buyout is enforced. We would have to face the buyout + the loss of television revenue. Add to that, the SEC would more than likely bring us into the revenue sharing of the SEC Network in steps like the Big Ten is doing for Maryland and Rutgers. Even assuming that the SEC would let us have full partnership payouts, it is not a financially prudent decision.
Given the new conf schools and the increased TV money, I wouldn't be surprised if the buyout isn't more like $60 million (and climbing) now.
This article from Clay Travis suggests that this may not necessarily be true. His belief is that within three years, each SEC team will make an additional $20M+ of annual revenue from SECN alone, on top of the roughly $20M they already make from existing deals with CBS & ESPN.
At the end of the day I agree with you that the GOR means that VT is committed to the ACC for now, but if the financial side plays out as Travis predicts, a buyout might actually make financial sense at some point well before 2027.
If there are 8M TV households in NC+VA (a rough approximation based on 2014 Nielsen data), you're talking about an extra $10M/month at current pricing, assuming a delta of $1.25/mo/sub for in-footprint vs. out-of-footprint. With that extra revenue you could pay off the two schools' exit fees in under two years, and buy out the final 6 years of the GOR with an ROI of roughly 5 years. And that assumes that the price stays flat, which I think is unlikely. The more the SEC can charge for carriage fees, the better the math gets.
Long story short, there is at least one possible future scenario in which it would be financially prudent to consider a move to the SEC as early as 2020.
$20M/year for each school? assuming the league distributes 100% and doesn't keep any for themselves, that is $280M per year. that means ESPN kept $280M per year AFTER expenses. So the SEC Network is going to generate $560M in PROFITS? that would mean bringing in over $1B per year in revenue if i had to guess what the expenses of running a network are.
for perspective, the BTN generated a profit $13.4M last year for the B1G (~$1M per school).
only profits are shared (50/50 between ESPN and SEC), not revenue. a lot of writers out there just take the publicly announced rates for each cable deal, multiply it out and divide by 14. it's simply not close to the true value of the network to each school.
Agreed, there are a lot of assumptions in there that could swing this wildly one way or another. Consider a hypothetical scenario in which the SEC adds NCSU and VT starting in 2020, and uses that as part of the justification to raise carriage fees by $1/mo for in-network subs. Again assuming 8M paying TV households in NC & VA, that's over $200M/year of incremental revenue in 2020 dollars.
There are obviously lots of other variables and what-ifs. Maybe consumers won't pay that much, maybe a-la-carte will actually happen, maybe the ACCN will be successful, etc. I'm not saying that this will happen (I think it's unlikely), but my point was that IF Travis is right about the revenue numbers then the financial picture COULD change such that an early exit from the GOR might actually make financial sense, whereas today it absolutely does not.
ETA: I'm deliberately ignoring an issue that ltrepeter raised above, namely that any real analysis would necessarily have to account for things like the increased costs for non-revenue sports, etc. I simply don't have any way to estimate those numbers, and what the hell, it's the offseason and there isn't a whole lot to talk about until camp begins next month.
even if that is completely true, if an SEC network does that well you know all the other conferences will follow suit, it will only be a matter of time before there is an ACC network.. and who's to say it doesn't do as well as the SEC network, certainly ACC basketball is a few notches above SEC, there would a number of people interested in it for non-football reasons.. and football seemingly is the only major sport that we could say that the SEC has a major advantage in public interest
What does the Academic side of VT think? Moving to the SEC does not raise your academic profile.
Isn't VT already ranked higher than all SEC schools short of Vandy? UGA, Uof F?
I can't imagine the facility would stop academic partnerships with Wake Forest and UVA for UTenn and Miss State.
I know of no VT partnership with LOLUVA. Then why do we beat them so much?
Here's one:
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2014/04/040914-engineering-rollsroycep...
And we're tied with Texas A&M (source: USNews).
Everyone knows that joining the ACC helped that side significantly. Watch and see if Louisville doesn't experience similar gains.
Virginia Tech has no plans to move to the SEC, even long ago (i'm talking 70's, 80's) it was clear that we wanted to be in the ACC, now that we are finally here no one up high wants to move. VT is much better off in the ACC for geographic reasons and revenue reasons. I'm not really quite sure why the SEC keeps being brought up by fans when its never even mentioned among the higher ranking VT officials (or at least i've never heard them mention it)
ESPN and other sports outlets bring it up during the summer to generate clicks and page-views. Some fans run with it. It will happen again next summer and the summer after that until it stops being a successfull tactic.
VT 4 Pac 12
The ACC won the MNC this year. That's all I'm sayin
Please, bring back football, please, so this thread will fade away!
While nothing is unpossible, the GOR effectively ended things for now. It's one thing to talk about how you might make back a $50M exit fee. But the ACC TV deal is worth (at least) $250M per school through the end of the current GOR term. In order to make the numbers work you have to account for that revenue as well. The ACC is not just going give up a half a billion dollars worth of media rights, and I don't see the TV people volunteering to take the hit either. Having said that, since the bulk of the dollars in play belong to ESPN, I suppose that they could drive this if they wanted to, assuming they could figure out a deal that helped both conferences. Maybe if they could convince ND (and who else?) to become full ACC members that might be worth talking about. Otherwise, this is nothing but offseason clickbait.
ETA: For the record, I was, and remain, very much in favor of a move to the SEC. But given the circumstances I just don't see how such a move is feasible even if the (new) powers that be wanted to make it happen.
Whit Babcock could put VT in contention to win the SEC football crown in 3 years. I have no doubt about it. Recruits want to play in the SEC, VT is in a fertile recruiting ground, and VT has the program to attract them.
If it was going to happen, it needed to happen in the early 00s.
Yes, yes, and yes!
A few random thoughts on jumping ship:
My #1 reason for wanting to go is that I'm afraid of how dangerously close we are to an "old Big East" Division in the ACC. We're screwed in any potential north/south alignment. As much as I like playing/visiting Pitt, I'm done with BC, Cuse, etc (and heaven forbid UConn/Cincy if the ACC wants 16).
The thought of home games against UF, UGA, Tenn, LSU, Bama, Auburn, A&M, USC, etc gives me immediate chubb. We're guaranteed at least one top-5 team coming in every year. Similarly, I'd also afraid of a home sched with Ark/Miss/Miss St/Mizzou but that'd be the worst-case scenario. No matter how nice of a season UNC/Duke/Wake/GT may have (for any one given year), they just get it done for me, and I don't see a ton of potential in their programs. We are ROUTINELY playing away games in front of 30,000 fans. I want Lane rocking again, and SEC schools coming to town will get us back there in a heartbeat.
Think it'd be a wash for our other sports (which I root for maybe more than most). Would take a step back in soccer and wrestling (would have to find a home there) but step forward in T&F, softball, etc. I do think it's silly to be fly our women's tennis team to College Station or Fayetteville when we could be busing to Chapel Hill or Winston-Salem. But this would be a football decision. I would consider it a huge win if, somehow, we played football in the SEC, but stayed in the ACC for everything else.
What if FSU and Clemson find a way in? Yea they'd have to get over the 'not adding additional markets' argument, but man, that's my nightmare (though it's not like we play them anymore anyways)
YES, our culture fits the SEC. In terms of our rabid and passionate fanbase and a 'football is king' culture, it does, and I don't see much of an argument otherwise.
I don't buy the academics argument... I understand, respect, and support where VT wants to be as an institution. In the sense of an academic culture, we'd want to be in the Big Ten, and I'd be ok with that. BUT - this is about who we compete with on the fields and courts, not in the classroom. I do not understand why competing athletically in the SEC devalues our institutional legitimacy.
Obviously I see other pieces of the puzzle having to fall first, whether it's getting rid of the GoR, or lowering/negotiating the buyout. I hope a GT/UVA/UNC flirts with the Big Ten first so that we're not the guinea pigs.
I don't want to "settle" for the ACC. I respect that our older generation of fans longed for their lives to get in the ACC and to be on an even level with teams in our geographic footprint. There's something fun/special about playing UNC and Duke in bball, and I'd miss that. But for me, we can do better. I gotta believe that our my boy Whit and our new administration will look at this objectively and not be satisfied that we've been "home" for the last 10 years.
So, are you tired of the venues or the lack of competition? Because we haven't exactly owned the ACC in the last 3 years. In the near future I picture FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, and VT being top 15 teams consistently. Hell FSU and Clemson are top 5 now. If the NCAA doesn't demolish UNC they can be too. Everything will change, it always does.
"The thought of home games against UF, UGA, Tenn, LSU, Bama, Auburn, A&M, USC, etc gives me immediate chubb. We're guaranteed at least one top-5 team coming in every year. "
I hope you are exaggerating for effect here because these two statements are not true. In a 16-team SEC (which would be required if VT were to join), VT would most likely be in the SEC East. That means we would have one or two games tops against the SEC West on our schedule, depending on if they stick with an 8 conference game schedule or move to 9 with expansion. The SEC has cross-division rivals just like the ACC that they play every year and the best teams in the SEC West are already spoken for (UT-Alabama, UGa-Auburn, UF-LSU, SCar-aTm). Those rivalries (excepting SCar-aTm) are pretty set and they are not going to be thrown out so we can have a powerhouse as our permanent rival. We would most likely be stuck with whomever the 16th team is that was poached, unless that team is in the east and they move Mizzou to the SEC West. If that happens our choice of rivals are Mizzou or Arkansas. That's a 50/50 chance of getting a good rival. Who knows how good the hypothetical 16th team would be. So no guarantee of a good rival there either. That effectively leaves zero, possibly one game a year against one of the three or four strong SEC West teams (Alabama, Auburn, LSU, and maybe aTm). We would play the non-rival SEC West teams once every seven years on average which means at Lane once every 14 years. That is really not that different from how infrequently we are scheduled to play FSU and Clemson.
This means relying on the SEC East for our perennial top five team coming into Lane every year. I went back and looked at the 2013 schedules for each SEC team and noted all of the games against teams ranked in the top ten at the time of the game. Not one game was played where a top 5 SEC East team played another SEC East team. There were seven games where an SEC East team played another SEC East team with one ranked in the top ten which were guaranteed due to division schedule.
UF:
#2 FSU
@ #10 LSU-R
@ #10 SCar
Mizzou:
@ #7 UGa
#3 Auburn
UK:
#7 Louisville
#1 Alabama-R
#8 Mizzou
UGa:
@ #8 Clemson
#6 SCar
#6 LSU
@ #7 Auburn-R
SCar:
@ #5 Mizzou
#6 Clemson
UT:
@ #2 Oregon
#6 UGa
@ #1 Alabama-R
@ #9 Mizzou
#9 Auburn
Vandy:
none
So out of seven teams in the SEC East, there were 19 games against teams ranked in the top ten at the time of the game. Five were OOC conference games (four with teams that are yearly rivals that are currently members of the ACC) which have nothing to do with joining the SEC. Four were permanent cross-division rivals, games which VT would not have access to. Three games were against non-rivals from the SEC West, which VT would have a small chance of getting.
So, seven teams in the SEC East with seven games against a top ten team, just not at home since home and away rotates every year. Adding two more teams to the SEC further dilutes the chances of getting a top five/ten matchup unless one of those teams is a top team already. This also assumes that the SEC decides to move to a nine-game conference schedule, which most of the SEC teams have opposed. Additionally, look at Vandy and UT. The schedules are not distributed evenly.
Again, having a yearly home game against a top team mostly relies on probably at least two SEC East teams staying in the top five/ten all year, or at least being there when we play them, due to home and away schedules, which did not happen last year and we have no guarantee of it happening in the future. Realistically, moving to the SEC means a few top 25 games a year, but nothing guarnateed in the top ten and definitely not in Lane each season.
So stay in the ACC and hope the Canes get their shit together eventually.
you make fair points, but keep in mind VT has played exactly ONE ranked ACC Coastal team in 2 years... some of those SEC East schedules look pretty good, even on a year in which Florida had an off year
not saying VT would have a top 5 team visiting Lane every year, but an SEC schedule would be much much better than what we have now, if we are gonna compare the two
Why wouldn't we want to play in the SEC? To be the best you've got to play with and beat the best. Could you imagine Thursday night games vs. Alabama, LSU, or Auburn? I get chills down my spine just thinking of that
SEC almost never plays Thursday night conference games unless it's the first week of the season, and even that's a rarity.
Add to that the fact that VT joining the SEC would result in a 16 team conference that wants to stick to an 8 conference game schedule. We would end up in the SEC East so VT playing Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M, and LSU in Lane would happen just as infrequently, if not less so, than VT is going to play FSU and Clemson.
Anyone think VT would benefit recruiting wise from being in the SEC? Just the media hype, whether real or imagined, it impacts a lot of decisions that top recruits make. If we were in the SEC, would it help retain a lot of the top instate talent that bolts out of state, particularly to SEC schools?
I realize the financial difficulties with a move are immense and repeat that I think VT messed up in agreeing to the current contract terms governing leaving the conference. Top players win games more than anything else, and if our goal is to win a MNC, then I think we should have left ourselves an out in case the chance to improve our recruiting by a conference switch presented itself.
I'm also not saying the ACC is a bad place to be. There are a lot of advantages to it. But when just focusing on the sport of College Football, and our stated goal to win a MNC, I don't think anyone can argue that we'd have better odds in recruiting more top players in the SEC, and nobody wins a MNC without stockpiling top recruits. And given the way the media hype has evolved around the SEC, I think even if they have some down years, the hype will remain the same. ESPN and other media outlets have too much invested and will continue to hype them to keep the money rolling to pay those contracts. If anything, their hyping up the SEC will only escalate further as they try to turn it into a bigger and bigger cash cow. That will continue to effect recruiting efforts no matter which teams are up and down.
I'd rather us be in the SEC than in the Big 10... With that being said, I'm not sure it will happen anytime soon. I would love to see us play against the best and some of the most historic programs in college football.
Plus, SEC Girls. I rest my case.
They'll get after ya...
Hokies girls & SEC girls in one stadium? Paradise on earth.
I believe we have found the equivalent of the fountain of youth.
How can you tell they are from the SEC?
Their shirts say LSU
I guess I should have put it in sarcastica font.
Shirts?
Oh wait...it says LSU on their shirts. I was looking at something else...
You and me both.
What are we talking about again?
for every 2 of those, there's 20 of these
*unless you're into that
I attend Georgia, and this statement is patently false as it applies to the student body.
Townies, maybe.
Having visited Athens when my buddy worked for Terrapin Brewing right out of College of Charleston, I can vouch for this.
I can confirm this as well (for Athens at least). Chucktown's no slouch either.
I hate the SEC, but I can't deny it...they are the big dogs on the block right now. I can't imagine it would hurt recruiting and it would be nice to play some of these teams. I would love to have Thursday night games against SEC teams. We probably do have a better chance of getting to the championship sooner in the ACC, but in the long run, being in the SEC might make us stronger. I can't decide. Fortunately, no one is waiting on my decision as it doesn't matter.
... or it could make us completely irrelevant. We could repeat our entry into the ACC, or we could turn into Utah.
we would lose Coaches Dresser and Williams the next day
I know that some people have brought it up already but think about the ACC vs SEC in terms of other spects besides football:
Basketball: I'd say even maybe a little more for the ACC but thats because of the traditions of UNC and Duke (But then again you have Kentucky so I don't know...)
Wrestling...SEc doesn't even have any so ACC
Baseball: Slight edge to SEC although ACC has better teams the SEC wins the CWS (unlike the acc and 59 years or so)
Soccer: ACC (not even close)
Academics: this is the big reason to stay in the ACC in the ACC you have some of the best colleges in the country from Duke, Uva, UNC, and of course VT. If you look at the Sec the good academics are Vandy and Florida. Now you also have to look at the "bottom of the academic standards chart." The Acc's "not so smart" school is probably FSU (and even then is still a pretty good school). For the SEC you have Bama, Auburn, and LSU.
Now if VT was thinking about going to a different confermece i would hope it would be to the Big 10. these schools still have traditionally strong football teams and solid basketball teams not so much baseball but eh you can't be good at everything. They also have awesome wrestling teams and the soccer teams are pretty solid as well. Also with the big 10, academics are very good. Now the issue here is the travel...Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska??? Those are some really long trips!!! Point is VT really only fits in with the ACC in what they wish to accomplish both athletics wise but also academically.
TL DR: VT should only stay in the ACC
I like you analysis of other sports; but since I only really care about football, and to a lesser degree basketball; mentioning VT to the Big 10 made me sick. Those games would be boring to watch and as unexciting as college football gets. I know we have some B10 schools on the schedule in Wisconsin and Purdue, but let's leave VT out of the Slow10.
To add to your Academics section there is a greater impact when it comes to the Atlantic Coast Conference Inter-institutional Academic Collaborative (ACCIAC). There are huge sums of money in terms of research at play as well that i think gets overshadowed by TV contracts for college football.
I leave for one week and we go down this rabbit hole again?
*sigh*
No, just... no. We've been down this path before, and I don't mean in the "oh, wouldn't it be great if VT joined the SEC" kind of path, I mean the actually joining what was going to be a football superpower. We just did it 10 years ago. At that point in time, the SEC was as mediocre a conference as it gets, the Pas 10 was USC and a bunch of nobodies, the Big 12 was alright, the Big East, while good, appeared to be top heavy, leaving the Big Ten as the big baddie on the block. When the ACC ripped VT and Miami away from the Big East, it was viewed as a massive coup that would destroy the Big East (which, it eventually did) and would create a massive football superpower by adding 2 great teams to a conference to compete with historical powers like FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech (not to mention recent upstarts, like UMd, UNC, NCSU, and UVa). And then expansion happened, and the bottoms fell out from under Miami and FSU, allowing schools like Wake and Boston College to make annual trips to the title game, crippling the national prestige of the league. And then the SEC rose out of the ashes and are the superpower that everyone assumed we would be.
These things are cyclical. The SEC isn't always going to be the toast of the town. Eventually, Saban and Les Miles will leave their programs, and when that happens... what then? Bama and LSU will both take steps back, much like we saw from Florida when Urban Meyer lost control of the team and eventually left (after winning back to back titles, by the way). The SEC is sitting pretty now, but won't forever. And the ACC... Do you really think that the conference as a whole will continue to play mediocre ball with as much talent in our back yards as there is in a conference made up of flagship schools of their respective states? Any discussion in the here and now about leaving, even before mentioning the financial screwjob we'd take on, and the fact that being in this conference is a major geographical fit, is extremely short-sighted.
Long story short: We're where we want to be and where we should be. Be happy we finally have a place to call home.
Bobby Petrino coaches in the ACC now...who needs the SEC?
#Ilovethesmellofadumpsterfireinthemorning
The issue with this is that conference dominance is all cyclical. For example, here was the top 25 at the end of the 2004 season:
Breakdown by Conference:
PAC 12: 3 (& National Champion)
BIG 12: 5
SEC: 5
ACC: 4
BIG 10: 4
NON-BCS: 4
I think with the exception of a couple of schools, I could see every program in the ACC finish in the top 15 within the next five years. I don't think going to the SEC would necessarily be the best long-term play from a competition standpoint.
Another article by Clay on the SECN. Will it really make more than the B1G/PAC12 combined?
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/sec-netwo...
i'm just not buying his numbers. i recall when the B1G writers were doing all of their math and breaking it all out the same way, B1G schools should have been getting $8M+/year from the network by now (profit). but they are only netting ~$1M each as of last year. time will tell when we see the first publicly reported distribution numbers (in 2 years?), but i'm just not buying that a college sports network only covering one conference is worth that much. it will make money, and it will be a good deal for the league and ESPN, but i don't see it as the top 3 or 4 sports network in the country or whatever...
and yes, i think the ACC should follow suit and that an ACC Network would also make good money for us and ESPN.
While I bleed O&M I'll be the first to admit that I'm hoping like crazy my provider carries the SECN. I currently have the B1G living in East TN and I rarely watch it. But with the SECN, if VT isn't on, I'll be tuned in a plenty. Heck, even if it's a choice between watching 2 mid tier SEC teams and the same from any other conference, where will people tune if their fav team isn't on? And we have....Raycom! LOL
i will most likely just watch ESPN, ABC, CBS, ESPN2, or an ACC game with relevance to Coastal standings 9 times out of 10 (hell, maybe even Fox or FS1 now). don't get me wrong, the more options the better, and i'll be happy to have the SECN should FiOS carry it, but i also won't miss it unless VT is playing an SEC roadie on there some day...
I hope so, cause I actually think an ACC Network could make MORE money for the ACC than the SEC Network will for the SEC.
Why, do you ask? Well, its simple... the SEC's football is already buttered by CBS and ESPN. Right away, sure, people might flock to the SEC Network, but once they realize they're still able to watch their teams play on Watch ESPN or CBS/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNNews every week, I could see the number of subscriptions dwindle over time. And for the rest of the year that isn't during the football season, its not like the SEC is pumping top flight programs after top flight programs, here.
Now, lets contrast this to the ACC
Football is up and coming. For the bigger schools (FSU, Clemson, VT, Miami, UNC) you still get all your games broadcast at the very least regionally, or on ESPN3, so there isn't necessarily a huge demand there. But then the bread of the network starts to get buttered in the winter... ACC Basketball, ACC Basketball, ACC Basketball. UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Pitt... The big networks CAN'T show them all, and this is where the demand for the ACC Network will peak. And then, it'll continue through the spring, where you get the best baseball conference, as well as the best lacrosse conference, and arguably the best soccer conference all on the same channel during what's supposedly the dead season of college sports. This will be the main draw of the ACC Network, and the reason I think the ACC Network is currently the sleeping supergiant of these conference networks. Nobody else can compete with the all around nature of top quality competition that you will see on the ACC Network.
There are two edges to this sword that both need to be focused on when discussing this. On one side of the blade you have "recruiting" and on the other you have "financials." A lot of people seem to be thinking of these things seperately without thinking of the others. There are those that say if we join the SEC we'll see a recruiting bump, which we will... at first. We'll see that bump right when we go in because kids will see a team that has swung for the fences in the past who has a decent sized chance of winning games in the SEC.
That's when financials will start to become an issue. We'll be blowing a lot of money in trying to move to the SEC. We all know that. I know a lot of you think that the money won't affect the winning on the field at all, but think about this. Once we lose the money we lose the things we can do with the money. We lose the ability to build crazy cool stuff like that indoor practice field we've always wanted. We lose the ability to build the Frank Beamer Terror Dome essentially ever. We even lose the ability to remodel and update our facilities. That's going to hurt.
So now suddenly you'll have a team with some young recruits, outdated facilities, and trouble winning. That's not going to attract a whole bunch of recruits. That's going to give recruits a reason to look harder at the other teams in the SEC instead of us. Not to mention all the crazy bonkers bullshit the other teams in the SEC do to attract recruits, we're going to have an even harder time attracting recruits.
Another way things could go, though, would be to stay in the ACC, keep our financials good, and build some crazy cool stuff. Do you think a recruits going to be more interested in a team in the SEC with dilapidated facilities who has trouble winning, or a team in the ACC with state of the art facilities that is consistently good, with a shot at the ACC championship and therefor the NCAA NC playoffs?