Recent Comments
"I suppose my point is the disparity between the two leagues has really become evident in the last ten years and we all know the cyclical nature of college football."
-That is right on the money
"I dont see the bottom of the SEC as being all that superior to the bottom of our league"
-Possibly more true than I realize, with the Vandy/Wake record you posted, BUT, consider the number of teams...this picture should illustrate (consider the dotted line as the average D1 football strength and the strength of a team based on the past 10-15 years)
SEC East teams. But might as well throw A&M and Mizzou in there. Plenty of winnable games. But the likes of LSU, Alabama, Florida (when they regain form), UGA, and Auburn are unmatched in any conference. So, it definitely would be a much tougher schedule
Vandy and Wake have been playing most every year recently, Vandy is 7-6 in those games. Clemson leads the Cocks 65-40-4 all time. Florida leads the Noles 33-21. The only SEC/ACC rivalry that the SEC team has really dominated is the Dawgs and fake Tech with the Dawgs enjoying a 62-39-5 advantage.
I suppose my point is the disparity between the two leagues has really become evident in the last ten years and we all know the cyclical nature of college football. I dont see the bottom of the SEC as being all that superior to the bottom of our league. In fact once you get past the nationally elite teams I dont find the good-mediocre teams from Gods Conference (sarcasm) all that scary. I think if we played in the SEC east this fall we would be right there in the mix for the title game in ATL.
Dont get me wrong I would be pumped if we got the invite but I guess having been raised in North Carolina before moving to Bburg as a teen I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the ACC.
Yeah we were third going into the Orange Bowl that year, if Morgan had recovered the onside kick against BC who knows what wouldve happened. Would they have jumped two loss LSU over one loss VT? Likely because we lost by 89 as noted above. If the four team playoff was in effect that year we wouldve gotten a rematch with the Tigers and with the way we played against Kansas we likely wouldve seen a similar result to the game in September.
That LSU loss was the ONLY reason we didn't squeak into the title game that year. Even with that HUGE loss, we were still relatively close to getting into the title game. AnFCSwin to take that place would have A)Lowered LSU's rank and B) Brought up our own.
I think you are making the wrong comparisons here. From what I am understanding, you are saying (paraphrasing) that the SEC has two or three games that won't bring much of a draw.
This is only partially true. I agree that teams like Ole Miss, Miss St., and Vandy, most years, are relatively bad. RELATIVELY, however, is the key word. Pick any year and put those teams against the ACC bottom rung (Duke, Wake), and they will win nine times out of ten. Furthermore, the big games are much bigger. Our big games right now are FSU, GT, and sometimes Clemson. Think about that marquee compared to Alabama, LSU, Florida, etc.
Basically, it is all relative, but I don't think anybody can disagree with the fact that going to the SEC would make the season as a whole generate tougher games against bigger opponents.
The only side note is that we should consider the championship. Do we have a better chance to go to a NC by winning out in the ACC or by losing once (on a good year) in the SEC. I'd say the SEC right now, but with the playoffs, probably the ACC.
And according to the latest BCS polls we should have been in the national championship in 07, but we got jumped by..... an SEC team because no one respected our schedule (and our 89 point loss to LSU). Take away the LSU game that year and replace it with an FCS win, and we still probably get jumped by LSU. That's really the most we can hope for in the ACC. Unless we happen to schedule the favorite to win the national championship and beat them, we don't have a chance of ending the season ranked #1 or 2.
"If we win fewer games contributions could actually decline."
I don't think it's based on wins. Seeing VT in Baton Rouge and Tuscaloosa is going to generate attention and interest, and it's going to get people involved. And of course people will donate WAY more to get season tickets if Tennessee and Florida are coming to town instead of Wake Forest and Duke.
The national sentiment (and reality) is that the ACC is only one rung up (barely, given Clemson's performance against WVU) from the Big East in ranking of the AQ conferences. Unless there is a major shift in how people see the ACC, it will still be a bottom feeder in football, and subjected to a deflation in the polls when it comes to the end of the season.
Once a 4 team playoff is set up, it will be a very rare case that a team outside of the SEC, PAC, B1G or BIG will be in the top 4. If the ACC doesn't do something to beef up it's football status (which it appears the commissioner is unwilling to do), no ACC team will get within sniffing distance of a NC game for a very, very long time.
Clemson was top 5 in the BCS at 8-0 before starting their slide. It would have been close last year but if the top team in the ACC goes undefeated they will be right there. If it is a 4 team playoff then an undefeated ACC team will almost always be included.
VT is a long ways from being an undefeated or one loss SEC team. I don't think there is much debate that VT's best path to play for a national championship is staying in the ACC. If VT wants to increase revenue then they move to the SEC.
With the perceived (and actual) weakness of the ACC as a football conference, I think VT's chances at getting in the National Title game are slim to none (without some serious external help; i.e., a complete collapse of the SEC in a season). I honestly believe that a one loss SEC team would jump an undefeated VT team in the polls simply because the overwhelming majority of the ACC's schools aren't really all that great in football.
IMHO, the only way for VT to actually be a part of the national title discussion now and in the future is to find a way for either the SEC, B1G, or BIG 12 to accept them. I'm willing to bet that in 10 years, the ACC will be relegated to Mid-major status for football.
I've said this before, I'd rather see 6 or so years of 6-8 win seasons with 2-3 years of dominance and possible national title games/wins in a quality conference over decades of 10 win seasons in a joke of a football conference.
I believe we will see a 4 team play off with the 3 highest ranked Conference Champs, and one at large bid. Most years this includes 4 of the top 5.
And with a playoff, don't you think there is more incentive to have a good schedule seeing as a tough schedule can boost your ranking? Currently 2 out of every 3 years, one loss puts you out of the National Championship discussion. That's no longer the case. Why not cash in for a pay day?
But, going back to the original discussion, I think we're more likely to get a playoff bid from winning the ACC than we are to finish top 2 in the SEC.
with that is there will be no incentive for teams other than Boise/ a conference-less Notre Dame team to play a big time oofc game with the new playoff system unless getting in to the playoff is strictly based on winning your conference to get in which is not going to happen when you only have a 4 team playoff.
A good portion of VT fans talk about how much they want the SEC but I'm not sure our fans are committed with the pocket books. You would imagine that in our division we would have some combination of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Ole Miss and Mississippi St. Florida, Georgia and UT are no brainers as far as selling tickets but are Kentucky, Ole Miss, Vandy and MSU really that much better draws than the BC's and Wake's of the world. Out of six home games I bet we see one more high level matchup than we currently do.
In order to be competitive in the SEC, VT is really going to have to up their game from a spending perspective. The additional revenues from the better conference allocation will help but VT would also really need to drive additional contributions in order to perform what would be necessary facilities upgrades. With all the complaining around people getting pushed out of seats during the current reseating I'm not sure that our fans would have the financial commitment necessary to be successful in the SEC. VT would really need to have their contributions increase 50-100%. That would just get them to the level of spending of Kentucky and USC.
If the ACC implodes I'm all for jumping ship but VT's national championship opportunities are far greater in the ACC than they are in the SEC. That alone is enough reason for me to want VT to remain in the ACC.
What if we were to just beef up our non-conference schedule? What if we do a Boise St. like game every year? How much extra cash will that bring in? What if we play 1 national spotlight game every year, 2 home-and-home's against decent teams from random BCS conferences, and 1 non-AQ school tops?
I am of the opinion that to win a national championship, our team needs to learn to win 'big games.' A big game for LSU is Oregon, Alabama, Arkansas, etc. A 'big game' for us comes against a Miami team that is a shell of its former self, a UVA team that hasn't had a notable win in the history of their program, or a Georgia Tech team that runs the football like it's 1950. The only way to learn to win 'big games' is to play more of them and gain experience.
Until we get good at the 'Big games,' our two options are:
A) Stay in the ACC, and beef up the OOC schedule. We could lose to two out-of-conference top 10 teams, finish with 10+ wins, but potentially win the conference and go to a BCS bowl.
B) Go to the SEC, lose to two in conference games to top 10 teams, finish with 10+ wins, but lose the division and go to a different bowl game.
Once we have a few seasons with some 'big game' wins under our belt, it shouldn't matter what conference we're in.
Ole Miss and Mississippi State. Two teams that haven't won against competition with a winning record in the past 3 years.
Coming up with around $10-15M or more anually in additional alumni contributions towards sports. Not sure the alumni base has such deep pockets. We are a very successful football team now. If we win fewer games contributions could actually decline.
I would be surprised if we get more recruits just because we might be in the SEC.
Fortunately the ACC and VT will see revenue increases in the years ahead and will be on better finacial footing.
I disagree that we would benefit more by going to the SEC then staying in the ACC at this point. If the ACC were to collapse, which I doubt happens and would be bad for all, then it would be another story.
I ask this, do you think the Orange Bowl is interested in a weak ACC? What about the other bowls with ACC affiliations? They are just as concerned about realignment as anyone else. I am sure they are lobbying behind the scenes.
that there would be a lot of hurdles in the SEC. However, here are some counter arguments:
I could just be a pessimist, but there are just absolutely ZERO gimme games in the SEC. There are no Dukes, no Wake Forests and no UVAs (#SHOTSFIRED).
Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee and (Insert NC team here) should be wins. VT will most likely still play UVA every year and VT will not have to schedule Alabama, BSU, or other elite OOC games and instead will likely play Big East or ACC teams. Winning 8 games would be the expectation, not 10, but I do agree, most casual fans will see the numbers and actually think the team is regressing.
The thing about taking time, is that the best teams in the SEC "don't rebuild, but reload" (excuse the cliché). Reloading also means taking really, really good freshman and immediately inserting them into need positions.
Alabama hardly ever plays freshmen, but they never have needs. VT will have holes and I think if VT recruits well (i.e. Kendall Fuller), then they will play the elite true freshmen. VT will run their program the way they always have. It will work in the SEC, but recruiting will have to improve to fill the gaps quicker. However, I think VT would be wiser to recruit MD, PA, NJ, and NY over Florida and Texas, as they will become the SEC team closest to home.
VT is ready, they're not SEC Championship ready, but they'll be competitive week in and week out. And I really do believe VT is in prime position to keep some of the best talent from VA in 2014. Announcement of VT in SEC would only help out more. UVA recruiting will become an afterthought and those recruits with SEC aspriations (i.e. Korren Kirven, Percy Harvin) won't have to leave the state.
More will leak on expansion in the next few days until FSU and Clemson announce.— Brian Ethridge (@TruthOrBear247) May 31, 2012
Maybe it'll happen soon, maybe not. All is quite on the front. But there seems to be a lot of chatter behind closed doors.
just wow. i mean if we had stayed in the least and had the same run we would've pocketed that dough right?
just sayin
frank and bud:
That's bad luck right there. We all know he's a very hard worker and dedicated to what he does, so no worries there. But, how much will this affect his ability to be utilized by the team since he's just a 5th rounder? I'm assuming he'll still be able to learn the system almost as much as the rest of the rookies...
Yeah on the same page as everyone else here. I used to alternate each year between NCAA and Madden. I typically like NCAA better, but i'm a bigger college football fan so maybe that's why. I just wish they could do something significant, but don't know what that is. Really the biggest complaint is the lack of a large library of sound clips they can pull from during the game. It gets so repeatitive after a couple weeks and then quickly gets old. Why can't they just record at least 3x the amount of commentary from the voice "talent", would it really be that hard??! That would be huge for this game. Imagine if the intros and play by play was different through out the season, huge improvement.
Why did you post this? You have now wasted our time with 28, no, 29 comments on this miserable topic. Gaaa, I fell for it too.
I second the "nope."
They do have the power. It will happen.
I don't think the question is 'if' anymore, but how these teams will be decided and if any bowls are left for the teams who don't get an invitation to the cool kids party.
and downfall of the ACC in terms of football may not be cyclical. I have the feeling, that the dynamics are holding steady in which the SEC will continue to get stronger and the ACC will continue to get weaker. I base this on the fact of the growth of SEC revenue is greater than the ACC money. But, who knows. FSU and Clemson are doing as well, if not better, than their SEC counterparts in recruiting and you never know where the next major recruiting violation (death penalty) will strike.
But, if Clemson, FSU and VT can become perennial national contenders, with one getting in the top 5 every year so, then the ACC will garner some clout and at least rise to the level of the Big12 and PAC12 (only 2 teams at the national level). The only problem is that these are the 3 most likely teams to bolt out of the ACC.