Recent Comments
I have but not in the 2nd half.
Isn't he right though?
I agree
They never have. Well, they do in some odd indirect way. College athletics, at least the two sports people actually watch, exist for only two reasons:
1. As academic marketing. Think of it this way, us people who actually digest and analyze football and basketball are effectively those websites who rank Super Bowl commercials the day after. Notre Dame is having a good year this year...who cares? The ND admissions department and the research grant/funding machine behind their university. Winning football team = more giving and higher admissions numbers.
2. The two revenue sports (seriously, there are only two!) exist to fund the rest of the non-revenue sports...we all know that. But why do schools need non-revenue sports anyway? To attract smart kids (and their parents wallets) who want to see them row, swim, field hockey and laccrossse it up. If you weren't trying to attract those private school kids with their high SAT scores, their future earnings and their trust funds, you wouldn't need "revenue sports" in the first place.
So, does adding Rutgers increase the B10's academic profile? Not directly, it's a bunch of public school New Jersey kids. But, indirectly they sell more cable subscriptions to the B10 network that funds the athletic budgets so B10 teams can recruit better than ACC and B12 schools and make more bowl games and play those once-a-game school commercials and drive up the admissions numbers in the east coast where all those private schools are.
Why are we doing all this? We want smarter (richer) kids in our schools. That's it. It's not about fans, "academics", competition, fairness to the student athlete, etc.
Another way to think about it, all this new conference realignment actually favors geographic diversity. The regionalism that made the SEC and (old) ACC great is actually a detriment to selling the commodity of the moment*: cable subscriptions. Obviously, geographic diversity isn't helping the "student-athlete" in any way.
* A quick review of the "commodity of the moment" through ACC expansion history. In the 50's, the ACC was formed with a regional tilt to put butts in the seats at football/hoops games. In the 80's, GT was added because they started Raycom, they needed Atlanta...and a traditional football power. In the 90's, the ACC sold its rights to ABC, so they needed FSU....a national football power to team with Clem/GT. In the 2000's, they replaced Raycom effectively with ESPN and added the ACC-CG, so they needed football teams with regional efficiency. BC never has made any sense to the ACC because they stretch that regional efficiency but don't add any true "market value" like the B10 is adding with Rutgers...because the B10 is selling their commodity of the moment, cable subscriptions, whereas the ACC has none to sell.
Vandy is actually good this year.
Disappointment? I didn't realize anyone expected us to be a great team this year... just go in to games with the realization that there's lots to learn and improve on going forward and cheer on this team. They are infinitely more fun to watch than any Greenberg team in the last 3 years and genuinely seem to enjoy playing with one another. Erick Green is the only senior on this team so they will only get better.
If UCLA beats Stanford they go to the Rose Bowl, Oregon would likely get a BCS bowl bid over stanford having 1 loss and Stanford having 3.
...too bad they tired of The TOB as the chef. Let's hope they don't find their Larry Fedora....
...gets to choose between NCSU and VT. They will likely pick VT because we draw better TV ratings and since NCSU fired the TOB, neither team will bring any fans to Orlando.
If the Russell Athletic Bowl Csar picks NCSU, the Sun will have to pick Georgia Tech, who can't fall more than that bowl. So the Music City would get us.
75% chance we play Louisville/Rutgers loser in Orlando
25% chance we play Vanderbilt in Music City
I did, just shows the tweet. Clicked the link there, it was unavailable. Hoping to read the full story.
Don't want to say I don't believe this, but I'm curious as to the context of this "discussion." If Bud was frustrated with the offense and said something to Frank, and Frank yelled at him, why would he stick around? I guess I'm just curious as to the specifics of this incident...
I just don't know if I can take the disappoinment this year
10 spots, 6 committed. So, 4 at-large, no repeat conferences.
SEC gets 2 (UF is in)
B12 gets 2 (OU is in with OSU win)
P12 gets 2 (Oregon is in)
Notre Dame is in
Clemson not only needed to win, they probably needed Oklahoma to lose.
Kent State gets an automatic bid if they beat Northern Illinois and UCLA loses to Stanford.....although UCLA is pretty far ahead of KSU so they may not fall below even with Stanford loss. If Kent State gets in, Oklahoma gets bumped.
Strange twists of history. Would TJ be a Hokies fan today?
1. If Beamer leaves, at this point he still has the right to do it on his own terms. I am totally against anyone calling for him to be fired(not that I interpreted the original post in that way, I understand the poster was talking about Frank retiring.) Though I am all for the AD stepping up and telling Frank he has to make coaching changes.
2. I actually wish that Frank would step down and retire sometime soon. I love that dude and think he is an amazing rep for VT. I'd hate to see him have a Bowden or Paterno-esque end (not in re: the scandal, just talking about deterioration of the football product.)
If I were Frank, I'd make some much needed changes on the O staff, stick it out for 2013 to implement them (maybe 2014) and then hand it over to Foster. I would not leave with Weaver being the guy who makes the call on the next HC, I'd use whatever leverage possible to make sure I got to appoint the next guy and I would make that Foster. Weaver will penny pinch (which still may result in Foster actually) and lets not forget how disastrous a hire he was about to make when Frank was all but wearing UNC gear back in 2001.
I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Click the Text
Got a link to the story?
This is comparable to the 38-0 GIF of those two UVA girls with the sign from last year. I watched that on and off for MONTHS
But you can't say that about your team, and frankly, you can't make those decisions (holding the timeouts) because anyone with half a football brain (which may or may not apply to his players) KNOWS that's why he did it. So now he's basically shown his offense he thinks they're shit (at least on Saturday against us) but he doesn't have the sack to come out and say it. DONTFIREMIKELONDON DOT COM
But, as another coach would put it, they were really only 4 or 5 plays away from winning the game...
The biggest reason I think this team can surprise people is because of how well we can shoot the three. It doesn't matter who you're playing against, shooting 64% from 3 (like we did against Greensboro) is ridiculous. But the one thing that will kill us is rebounding because this team can't rebound worth a damn.
Like you said, everyone show up this week! If we can win both of these games then don't be surprised to see us in the top 25 next week. When Cassell sells out that place is loud, so bring that Lane Stadium atmosphere indoors because this is a young team that will feed off the crowd.
tedford is intruiging
Beamer does not answer to Jim Weaver, he answers directly to the President, Charles Steger. It has been that way since the late 90's when Beamer was threatening to leave VT.
I see Beamer sticking around. Rumor has it there will be some reshuffling going on. I don't think we will lose Stiney but we will see. I see him being demoted and just coaching the TE's. Would love to see VT hire a big name OC, new O-line coach, and a good QB coach. Fix those 3 things and I think we have it!
Go Hokies!
He could have saved a few cents in texts if be would have just told Teel
"I didn't trust my offense."
BEST GIF EVER.
First to arrive, but didn't graduate, I still give him props for walking over though.