15 STRAIGHTon May 15, 2023, 3:18 PM | 437 comments
What an awful nickname for the group. That alone should relegate us to the ODAC. Regardless, really interesting tidbit here. Our GoR deal obviously sucks so good to see we are working with others to attempt to find a way out. Shoutout to the idiot, John Swofford.
Only omission I see is Duke in terms of what they bring to the table for basketball and some non-rev sports.
Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are "The Magnificent 7" ACC schools, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. These schools, @RossDellenger reported, have met in past several months, w/lawyers examining grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is....— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
I don't know if Duke would care necessarily, my guess is their basketball brings in enough to float the AD and then they're fine with whatever chump change the conference pays out on top.
Tell me this is huge? Ie the beginning of the dissolution of the ACC! PLEASEEEEE
Get us into a better situation and you call us whatever the fuck you want. Shit, if the SEC lets us in, they can call us Vahhhh-Teck, I don't care.
Serious question. Could we afford to be in the SEC? I remember years ago talking about this and someone brought up some numbers of what they would require from members in terms of facilities and it seemed like lot more than we were able to probably do at that time
That's a one time fund raiser that I would bet gets a lot of attention. Once we're in then we get 10s or millions more a year in tv revenue.
Jim Weaver (RIP) pinched every penny possible to run in the black, Whit seems to be more liberal with the checkbook
I always look at the baseball stadium coming in for football games and it blows my mind how much that place has changed in a decade. I remember when they put the terraces in on the and that was a huge deal...now it looks like a spaceship compared to what it was. Hell, the first couple times I played at English, the outfield wall was straight up wooden lol
I ran into that thing a time or two.
Weaver for some reason and Beamer to some degree didn't fundraise the fan base either.
Yes of course. Our facilities aren't the best in the country, but they're competitive. From a TV broadcast perspective, the ACC asked schools to build on campus broadcast centers.
Not to mention the fact that, in 2024, the SEC's TV revenue (not including bowl/playoff revenue) will be nearly 3x that of the ACC.
There is no world in which Virginia Tech 'cannot afford' to be an SEC team.
I live in SEC country and SEC fans absolutely think VT should be in the SEC and not because they want a team to beat up on. Most are sour or ambivalent about Missouri and pretty much don't even understand why they are in the SEC. They recognize Lane stadium as one of THE football experiences. Football is also good for raising a school's academic profile. Michael Vick and the '99 team definitely increased interest in VT and allowed the school to be more selective (thankfully I was admitted before then). It's not like we would be in bad academic company either with Vanderbilt, Florida, Texas and Texas A&M. It's a move that makes sense. Think about how powerful and interesting regional rivalries would be. VT-KY, VT-TN, VT-GA, VT-SC. Those games wouldn't only be great television, they would also be a great recruiting tool. We're not going to get Pennsylvania kids to come to VT over Penn State or Ohio State, but if we raise our profile we have a fighting chance is Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina and historically Florida. The major motivation for the SEC would be TV markets. Right now they don't have DC/MD/VA or NC. They already have SC and FL. At a minimum it would make sense to take VT and one of the NC schools. Most likely UNC or NC State. I'm less worried about conference and national championships than I am about becoming totally irrelevant in a conference that made what could be the worst media deal in the history or media deals.
This. The SEC is huge on traditions and pageantry. I think they would hype up the Lane/Sandman experience and the tremendous rivalry potential with other SEC schools in our geographic footprint. I can picture an SECN Gameday from State Street in Bristol to hype VT/Tennessee. Stuff like that they are huge on.
The Battle at Bristol was legitimately big for college football, and we held our own in contributing to it. You damn well know the SEC already has plans to lean in heavily on the potential VT-Tenn rivalry going forward.
VT-SC would be good too as South Carolina doesn't really have much history in the sec and there's the whole Beamer angle plus they're one of the closer opponents.
Tennessee has enough rivals already
A bid to join the SEC would save our program. We would be a doormat for a couple years but I believe recruiting would get exponentially "easier". As my favorite poster dcwilson says. WE NEED DUDES.
IT would! And the SEC fans I know are all for it. Their basic sentiments are that football is important to Virginia Tech, it's a shame what has happened, things can turn around and the VT has shown that it has the grit and passion.
The chances are that we would be in the SEC East. I don't know that we would be a doormat and the SEC likes to protect its teams so we may get cross over schedule relief. Having watched a lot of SEC football (I live in TN) we would have a good chance against Vandy, Missouri, Kentucky and maybe even Florida. Playing west teams I like our chances against Auburn and Arkansas. Not sure what's going on with A&M.
Mere membership in the conference brings in money and will help recruiting. If you have the right fan support and coaching staff amazing things can happen. Look at Tennessee's resurgence. Also timing is everything. Nick Saban is 71. How many more years is he going to coach?
Let's not forgot other sports that could flourish in the SEC too. Baseball would get a recruiting boost, Basketball may suffer a little, but I don't think it would be detrimental. The SEC put two teams in the Women's Basketball Final Four.
Other than wanting to be recognized by the elites schools in ACC (a good number of which we detest), there's really nothing left in this conference for us.
First, great post. Hits the nail on the head on many levels.
Texas A&M would be an interesting matchup. If I'm not mistaken, we are the only two schools outside of military schools to both have a Corps of Cadets. They could really play that angle when we would play against them.
There are more than that. Radfird has a corps. What most don't have is ROTC. The corps at tech is bigger than the ROTC. Tech and A&M are among the six senior military colleges offering rotc programs.
Not sure what you're thinking of at Redford. MANY schools have ROTC programs, and they may wear their uniforms to class occasionally, and may call their ROTC a "Corps," but Tech and A&M I believe are the only two schools to have a Corps that lives together, wears uniforms to all their classes (except on a VERY limited exception), and resides within a larger civilian population. (For the record, I was a cadet at Tech and my brother and dad were in ROTC programs)
It's that uniqueness that would probably get us a lot of recognition on sports channels when playing A&M.
I've switched up a bit of the verbiage. But the part about tech being one of six SMC's was correct. So, it's more than just two. But, A&M and Tech are the only ones that would make a decent sports rivalry.
We're the only two at the FBS level. And certainly the only two that most people have heard of where the Corps is just part of a much larger student body.
Only two D-1 even. The only other civilian/corps SMC is North Georgia, and their corps is tiny relative to overall student body. The other 3 SMCs are VMI, Citadel, Norwich, which are purely military schools.
LSU and Clemson are probably closest in terms of historical status as military colleges, but never held the same Title 10 status as the SMCs.
VMI and Citadel are both D1, but at the FCS level.
I think I misread. I thought you were focusing on the schools with blended Corps/Civilian populations.
Just as long as they show clips from the game where we played them in Lane in a hurricane. That's pure college football right there.
The comments in that Twitter thread are...something. I've been spoiled by all the informed conversation on this site, and forgot just how much of a fucking hellscape twitter is.
If you ever find yourself feeling good about humanity, just spend some time reading twitter and YouTube comments and it'll pass.
Assuming this factually correctly (even if it's properly sourced, we've seen realignment stuff shift before the reporting gets out), it's interesting to see that state schools are working together (UNC/NC, UVA/VT). Makes me wonder if there's political backing for it. If so, I think that bodes well for us.
I'm also kinda surprised GT isn't listed. They're probably the best nerd school out there (behind ND), and they seem willing to play the NIL game (from what I've heard from semi-connected folks I know).
NIL money may be there from donors, but their athletic department hasn't been acting like they care about big time football. Hiring their interim coach to be HC, regardless of how well he did, was a move to save money.
The new AD is changing that. Apparently, the previous AD never even reached out to their third highest earning living alum, and the new AD did, and that guy was literally just waiting for someone to call him.
From what I can tell, GT's current spot is somewhat similar to VT 5ish years ago, and the new AD is working hard to change that.
I completely forgot they had a change in AD. I guess taking over in October doesn't give one much of a chance to do a full HC search.
I have always said it, and continue to believe it. If the ACC implodes, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, and NC State are going to be 4 of the most coveted entities available because of the untapped markets available to the Big Ten and SEC. All 4 will end up in one of those 2 conferences.
The likes of Clemson, FSU, ND.... those are the sure bets and the ones where its basically a formality on where they end up. The true intriguing aspect here is what happens to that mid atlantic 4.
I have felt pretty confident that the SEC is not going to let the Washington DC metro, Richmond, and Tidewater markets go if the ACC folds. There are only two teams that can get them those markets and LOLUVA isn't going to do that. They don't really care about football and football drives the bus.
If the Big 10 can reach the west coast, then the SEC will poach the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. I would expect some play for a Virginia team (VT or UVA, but I'm sure the governor will get involved [again] to help make it a package deal), and grab some combo of Pitt, Syracuse, and BC.
The SEC isn't taking anything in the northeast, no one up there cares about CFB and if they do it's B1G schools
Its not (just) about CFB. Its about breaking the New York and Boston TV markets. Those markets DO care about football, and the absolutely care about basketball. Granted, its going to take some getting used to when 'bama visits BC in November.
Thanks for clarifying, outside of Villanova and UConn in basketball no one gives two shits about BC, Cuse, Temple, or really even Pitt football
Honest question- does the addition of the VA tv markets offset a smaller piece of the pie for current members? If not, what is their incentive for expanding?
Not just the VA TV markets. It is the Washington DC metro market which at last check is 5.5 million people. All of those TVs would be switched to the in-conference rates for the SEC Network and such.
Yes. And just by rough numbers I've seen/looked at online, VA plus NC markets would worst-case scenario cause no change in payouts but likely increase overall. Just too many eyeballs in those two states to ignore.
Yep, the Washington DC TV market is the 7th largest in the country and the SEC has no presence in it.
I want to believe, I do... but banking on incremental revenue from cable subscriptions seems shortsighted given the cord cutting movement. YouTubeTV which includes SECN for example doesn't cost more in Georgia compared to Virginia, right?
YouTube TV is now up to $73/month for the basic subscription. Factor in a few more subs (Netflix, etc) and cost of high speed internet and you're likely over $150 or so dollars for streaming at a minimum in most cases. For some families they're likely just going to stick with cable as streaming costs climb. And the new revenue wouldn't be incremental for the SEC - if VA and NC become in-market for the SEC, the carrier fee automatically increases significantly per household per their agreement for SEC network. I can't remember exactly but it's something like .25 to over a dollar or more if memory serves. That's a ton of cash if you look at numbers on cable/satellite subscribers in those two states.
Edit: this article has some good info. .25 is out of network rate, current rate for in market is $1.30/$1.40. That's huge.
And combined, Virginia and North Carolina have a population of 19.5m people...
It would be a significant increase in TV revenue for either conference, and that's before considering it would possibly trigger a renegotiation based on new dynamics that the broadcaster would likely need to pony up more for
Exactly. And this isn't even considering advertising revenue for big marquee matchups. Clemson/FSU give you the current big program splash, VT and NC State give you two new territories and a pile of additional revenue, plus two high potential programs as well. The SEC is not dumb.
If every single person had a cable subscription, which isn't factoring in households or streaming, that's $20M of incremental revenue, far less than the $100M it would need to breakeven by adding VT and NCSU for those markets? SEC schools received $49.9M each in 2021-2022.
Again, I hope I'm wrong but I don't see the math behind this. Member schools aren't going to vote for a smaller check.
That carriage fee for the SECN is per month. Are you using that in your calculations?
The tongue action just makes this gif.
Tongue action makes a lot of things..... /s (I know...phrasing lol)
Not yet, no. But it will be very interesting to see how negotiations go between Disney and Google, especially once Disney picks up the remaining share of Hulu currently owned by NBCU. Streaming customers aren't very sticky, so it seems like Disney will have all the leverage... if Google doesn't agree to price increases, it's not like YTTV subscribers can't just switch to Hulu if they care about ESPN.
Over the past couple months Disney is losing lots of their clout.
Disney + lost about 4 million subscribers last quarter.
losing their clout in India? they lost 300K in US and Canada, still a significant financial loss.
It's bad. Stockholders are suing them.
Two separate quotes from the article (emphasis mine):
Indeed, all the losses could be attributed to India, where subscriptions were off by 4.6 million. Disney+ saw a 300,000 subscriber loss in the United States and Canada, where the service now has 46.3 million subscribers..
"Disney+ Hotstar lost 8% of total subscribers. It accounts for a big chunk of the service's worldwide subscriptions, 52.9 million. Disney+'s non-Indian subscriptions were up 1% for the quarter."
Over 1/3 of Disney+ subscribers are in India and they lost streaming rights to the top cricket league, in India. That's why they lost so many subscribers. It's journalistic malpractice for anyone to report the sunscriber losses without the context.
Whoops. I misread what Chazz wrote.
Shouldn't drink and read.
Yea. It is a huge loss. And they clearly loss a good amount of global clout, but arguably it's good for an Indian media company to rein those media rights (depending on one's opinions on imperialism and all that...). In terms of American media clout, I'd argue they still reign supreme. And the mouse can still push its weight around quite a bit, as demonstrated with the ongoing Desantis feud.
Also, Florida gets a lot of rain. (that last sentence was added because ... homophones)
NC plus VA as a package deal gets you more customers than New York
Neither the SEC nor Big Ten would turn down adding those two markets if they were available.
Given that the pace of cord cutting has been accelerating for a while, why are we still thinking that OOC/IC rates for linear cable networks are what is driving the bus in realignment? I thought the most recent realignments were driven by eyeballs and not so much by states and rates.
With cost of streaming rising steadily, cable isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And with the increase in the SECN subscriber fee from out of market to in market for VA and NC, multiplied by the tremendous amount of cable/satellite subscribers in those two states, that is a boat load of cash. It might not be the primary motivation, but that's still a ton of untapped revenue that cannot be ignored for either the Big Ten or SEC.
The most recent realignments (USC, UCLA, Texas, OU) address both. Those are three of the top 10 programs. Different equation for VT.
You've pretty much summed up why we still have cable, beyond just for sports. Trying to find something to watch and getting it loaded and running can be a chore. I can just flip on the TV and The Office is just playing. Good enough for me. I don't have to keep digging around for that exact thing that I might want to watch, while not knowing how to find it and making it feel like a complete pain in the ass to be entertained.
That's interesting you say that because I find it more convenient without cable. With a Roku and YTTV, I can simply hit one button, have the TV turn on and open YTTV, then decide what I want to watch.
If I'm turning on cartoons for the kids, it's easy to hit "Left" on the remote to go to the Library and pick a show you have set to record every time it airs (as of now it's mostly Bluey and Peppa Pig) and they will play every episode ever recorded back-to-back until you stop it. Unlimited DVR as well, so you can record those classics like The Office or Seinfeld if you want to quickly put on something in the background and not hunt.
Or if you want your traditional cable experience, simply hit one arrow button to the right on your remote and go to "Live" which is your traditional cable TV lineup. Which to YTTV's credit, has a way better channel selection as well as a ton more sports options/networks than basic cable.
It's also nice to be able to search movies and such which you know are being aired on TV but want to watch later, so you can stream them whenever you choose or have them set to record.
After cutting the cord, I am mad I wasted so much time not using YTTV when it was available and would've made me happier and saved me a lot of money. If you're unfamiliar with it, it is very much worth the 7 day trial to get accustomed to it, but once you do you'll realize it's far superior than traditional cable.
YTTV is basically the same as cable - YTTV pays the same carriage fees that Comcast does. From an 'end user' perspective, it's basically the same (you can channel surf).
It's different than say, splitting your streaming between ESPN+ and Amazon.
I've seen calculations (on message boards) that suggest the SEC would get a significant raise if every home in VA and NC was paying 'membership rates' for SEC network (currently, they pay a decreased carraige fee since no current SEC schools are located in those states). Not sure how accurate these calculations were.
I also don't know if the SEC wants to continue playing the cable network game, or try to get the best brands possible in hopes of getting more post season money and squashing competition.
I think they're after both. I don't think cable is going anywhere honestly as streaming slowly catches up to the cost of cable. And the rough numbers I've seen suggest there is just too much cable subscriber revenue in both VA and NC markets for the SEC to ignore it.
1.5 million people still paid for AOL in 2021. At that time they still made like $200 million a year from dial up internet. It may seem like people are flocking to the new hotness and ditching cable, but for many it's easier just to not mess with it.
List of TV markets
Here's the DC/VA markets:
Washington, D.C. (Hagerstown) (#8)
Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News (#44)
Tri-Cities, TN-VA (#101) -- although the SEC might already have this due to Tennessee
And here's the NC markets:
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville) (#23)
Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem (#47)
Greenville-New Bern-Washington (#103)
Wilmington, NC (#129)
Current (and soon-to-be) SEC markets in the top half:
Dallas-Fort Worth (#5)
Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota) (#13)
Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne (#17)
Miami-Fort Lauderdale (#18)
St. Louis (#24)
San Antonio (#31)
Kansas City (#33)
West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (#39)
Birmingham (Anniston and Tuscaloosa) (#45)
Oklahoma City (#46)
New Orleans (#50)
Fort Myers-Naples (#55)
Mobile-Pensacola (Fort Walton Beach) (#58)
Little Rock-Pine Bluff (#60)
Springfield, MO (#75)
Columbia, SC (#76)
Charleston, SC (#88)
El Paso (Las Cruces) (#91)
Baton Rouge (#95)
Jackson, MS (#96)
Fort Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers (#97)
Myrtle Beach-Florence (#100)
Tri-Cities, TN-VA (#101)
Looks like to me, most of the top part of the SEC market list is boosted by Florida and Texas.
The Tidewater market is ranked right above Tuscaloosa.
I saw this today about TV ratings and markets in relation to schools. Pretty interesting. The biggest shock to me is how low UNC is and just how high Louisville is (not that they are high, but THAT high).
Calling VT the 7th most desirable non-P2 team (I'm using most viewed as an analog for most desirable) feels about right to me. The question is how much further the P2 wants to expand.
Verrrry interesting, the delta (and relative position) between UNC and NCSU!
Looking at this data before, I think Louisville is an outlier and their data is skewed by 1) playing FSU and Clemson annually and 2) the Lamar Jackson effect in 2016 and 2017. Not to say they wouldn't still be fairly high, but I think they are higher than they should be given those factors. Also bodes well for us that given the last decade has been pretty abysmal other than 2016/2017, we are still pulling in good numbers even when down.
He put a disclaimer follow-up that this accounts for the past decade, omitting the COVID year.
Keep in mind the state of VT football during this timeframe, and look at where our spot in the standings is....
And now realize we are sitting on one of the largest out of market tv subscriber bases for either the B1G or SEC.
are you calling NC the mid atlantic?
Been reading rumblings on this for about a week or so now but with McMurphy now coming out with it, this has some definite legs. I feel like we would not be on the voting bloc for potential dissolution if we didn't have a seat at one of the big boy tables. So glad we are siding with Clemson/FSU as the big football oriented schools, and really glad state schools are working together (VT/UVA, UNC/NCSU). When this goes down, I've thought all along the B1G and SEC are going to split VA and NC. UVA and UNC to the B1G and potentially VT and NCSU to the SEC makes a ton of sense. I'm also starting to wonder if the drawn out rumblings of Oregon and Washington to the B1G are a smoke screen for something bigger.
Very glad VT is being proactive in this. Let's cross our fingers and hope this works out for the best. This is about to be the defining moment in our athletics history IMO.
Glad we are still relevant enough to make this list. A testament to the fans maintaining some semblance of legitimate football culture, despite the drop off from the glory days.
Ehhh, realignment isn't about getting schools who are good right now, its about finding the right programs that will build your profile over the long term. Sports are cyclical, and VT is absolutely the kind of football program you want in the fold when things start going well again, and they will. And VT with SEC or B1G revenue streams could easily bounce us back to relevance quicker than many think, and you have to believe the SEC and Big Ten schools know it.
We're not disagreeing.
I also think that being good in other sports helps our image. We all know football drives the bus, but our ability to be a high achiever in other sports shows an overall level of commitment to athletics that makes us valuable.
Cautiously optimistic...? I can't really come up with anything else to say. Lots of ways things can still go south on this if we get locked out of some backroom dealings and such. But, with all the smoke on this right now...it definitely seems like there's a fire somewhere.
What if these are acceptable outcomes?
VT -> SEC (Duh)
VT -> B1G (Duh)
VT -> BIGXII (?)
A lot of people online seem to think our endgame is the Big XII, which would be pretty meh
I don't think so. This initial voting bloc to me says these seven schools are fairly confident (and have probably had back channel conversations) with the P2 and likely have a spot. You think if these 7 decided to vote to dissolve, ND most assuredly would be 8 - four and four to each of the P2. I think the remaining schools would then either head to Big 12 or the smaller more basketball focused schools would join the Big East or form a new league and merge with schools like those. I don't think VT leadership would be ready to side with those schools if we didn't think there was a high likelihood of P2. Online comments are mostly people looking at our recent record and harping lol y'all suck without even thinking about the big picture. Big 12 will survive as the third conference for a while, but it will be another ticking time bomb for realignment down the road for sure.
VT and NC State aren't seeking legal counsel to break up the ACC so they can join the Big XII, which is in worse financial shape than the ACC.
Anyone who is suggesting that's even on the table based on today's news doesn't really know what they're talking about.
At the end of the day, these are the only schools I want to play every year anyway. Let 'er rip boys
But what about our epic rivalries with Boston College and Wake Forest?
sacrifices must be made
EDIT: Fuck Matt Ryan
It seems everyone is assuming these schools are looking to join other existing conferences... maybe these schools are looking to split and make their own conference. Add a ND, maybe throw in a OK St, get a fresh TV deal, and only split the pie 9-10 ways.
I think I read somewhere that if half the teams leave, then the GOR is no good. The ONLY way half the teams are leaving is if they are ALL guaranteed spots in the B1G and SEC...This ain't happening....Or they gather the best football (revenue) schools and split.
Please to the sec. We will get our ass handed to us, but maybe we can tread water in a few years. The acc is hot garbage, and the football is getting worse by the year, as have we.
I believe being the northernmost sec school would be very advantageous.
Also, as someone who is driving distance to at least 5 SEC schools, I'd love to play away games there.
VT will never be the northenrmost SEC school unless both UK and Mizzou leave.
Northernmost on the east coast?
The point I'm getting at: There's a lot of talent in DC, MD, VA, PA, and NC. Going to the SEC instantly gives us more credibility in those states, and potentially makes us more attractive (to recruits in those states) than other SEC middle tier SEC schools.
Good let Swoffords lasting legacy being running this conference into the graveyard. We should never have agreed to the new deal
Oh that's already his legacy. The only question is how many people bail out of the car before it goes over the cliff...
John Swofford right now watching the ACC fall apart because of his doings
Not surprised. It's been obvious we're moving towards a super conference type situation (SEC and BIG, though it looks like Big12 might hang around as a little brother) for awhile now, almost a decade. Once USC and UCLA and then Texas and Oklahoma made their jumps, this became inevitable as we entered the end game. I rolled my eyes at any GOR talk about how it locks the ACC together. There's too much money involved for these schools to stick with that nonsense.
And I've never panicked about our standing either. Our fanbase (though its common across all fandoms) get too pessimistic about a variety of things for a variety of reasons. We're a valuable brand. We're strong academically (that still matters to these conferences to an extent), we're good across a variety of sports, yes we're currently down in football but its still a recognizable name, and we have a sizable and loyal fanbase that does good TV ratings and will travel to other stadiums/arenas. Whether its BIG or SEC, we'll have a seat at the table. And this Mag 7 (likely Mag 8 because I bet Notre Dame is involved too), wouldn't be talking about looking to leave the ACC if they didn't know their seats were already secured. They ain't dissolving GOR on the off chance half of them could end up in the Big12.
We have to use the name from a derivative work? I mean come on, we're supposed to be a place of education, I guess they let UNC choose the name.
I mean you could throw in ND and make it The Hateful Eight.
We're calling the rest of the schools "The Expendables", right?
VT is clearly Steve McQueen so I'm good with it.
Don't matter now, it's the "Magnificent Eight"
Yeah this guy throws shit at the wall constantly and has never been proven right. He went public yesterday saying the reason that VT and NCSU did this was because they were desperate to get to the Big 12. Which, no
Going to be an unpopular opinion but I'll plant my flag here. I love playing most of the ACC teams and would be mostly bored playing the SEC East. I hope the ACC can stay together and we can renegotiate rights to be competitive with the top two leagues.
Now obviously we would need to make some changes for that to happen. Basically the problem with the ACC is we have 5 G5's dragging down what would be a competitive power conference. Wake and BC are non negotiables, they have to go. They move the needle in the wrong direction as far as viewership and neither have any upside growth potential. GT, Duke and Syracuse are the other three. I think you can make arguments for each of them to stay. (Syracuse huge fan base, Duke basketball brand, GT probably would be fine if they spent more.)
So my idea of how this works out successfully: break the rights, kick Wake and BC, maybe one more. Add WVU, and full court press ND (their admin and fan base likes playing ACC teams and the 12 team playoff is a huge carrot at the end of our stick). Bam you've got a 14 team conference with much better inventory that can re-negotiate rights.
I see this as much more successful because personally, I would much rather play Miami, UNC, WVU, Clemson and NC State every year than Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia and Florida. The ACC games are much closer and they're against competitive opponents that are imo much more interesting than the SEC East slate we'd be getting by switching conferences
I'll take the paycheck and regular games against Georgia, Bama, A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, Tenn, USCe, and Florida over maybe four ACC teams any day of the week.
I won't. I'd hate to get blown out yearly by Georgia and Bama. Losing to A&M would piss me off so much, can't stand those assholes. A series with Tennessee sure, the others are either too far or don't move the needle for me, who cares about South Carolina.
If it's a difference between the current setup and a "take the checks, take the losses" deal I'll take what we currently have any day of the week
We would get whooped in year one, for sure. But it wouldn't stay that way forever. Nick Saban has to retire, or at least die, one day.
With all due respect, your comment is realistic in the short term, but it's scared in the long term. Why even strive to compete in the ACC if we're afraid to play the teams we'd have to play after winning the ACC?
I mean we could easily compete and beat SC, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mizzou and the Mississippi's in both the near and longer term, but long term we don't have the war chest to compete seriously against Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Florida. And we'd also be behind Auburn and Tennessee although I do think we could compete close to their level. But don't forget Clemson and FSU would likely be coming as well
if we stay in the ACC our "war chest" will be absolutely miniscule anyway
acc war chest << SEC/B1G war chest every single day and twice on Saturdays. If we're going to have a smaller "war chest" than the bluebloods anyway, I'd rather have a slightly smaller one than a much, much smaller one.
You're basically advocating for being the tallest midget (to borrow an analogy used on these boards before) and I would MUCH rather be an average giant than a tall midget. I think VT would be in a much better position in the SEC even if that means finishing 7th in the league most years. The 7th best team in the SEC (or B1G) will still be lightyears ahead of the best team in the ACC in 5 years. I don't want to stay in a bad league just because I think it is winnable. I want to compete against the best teams, where it is harder to keep up, but we'd have the funding to stay competitive. Staying in the ACC will lead to us, effectively, being relegated to the G5 - and our downward spiral will just continue. Getting into one of the P2 leagues is the only way VT can stay even somewhat relevant in CFB.
I do see us getting worked for a few years but in the long term I see us moving closer to national relevance than what the ACC can get us. We have lost so many recruits to Penn State, but if those kids saw SEC next to our name (and we start winning again) they would come to us. We are rebuilding anyway, and with NIL we need all the money we can get to begin truly competing again.
Oh yeah, the first couple of years would be HARSH for us. I'm not saying that we would be the 7th best team on day one at all. But I think we stand a much better chance of getting to the middle tier of the SEC with SEC money and prestige than we do of getting to the top of the ACC with ACC money. And the top of the ACC isn't going to mean anything in 5 years anyway so we might as well take our medicine and get it over with. VT getting SEC money for the cost of being the league's whipping boy for a couple of years is worth it IMO. We might suck relative to the 7 or 8 teams we play in conference but we'll be getting way more money, have way better recruiting angles, get better exposure, and have a much more stable foundation to build from than anything the ACC could offer. 5 years after joining the SEC I think we could easily be a top half of the league type of team. We have the culture and the facilities to compete. The SEC next to our name would do wonders for recruiting and with the right coach I think we could be a top 25 team on the regular. It would suck at first, but 5 years from now we'll be 10X better than if we stay in the ACC. That is just about guaranteed.
I think the SEC will market VT 1000 times better than the ACC can ever do or wants to.
Absolutely. The SEC as a conference has more unity than the ACC. The ACC is all about Tobacco Road and more specifically UNC.
Nick Saban died five years ago and had his consciousness uploaded to an android. Nick Saban is eternal and will still be coaching after the heat death of the universe.
Edit: If it was possible for Nick Saban to die, Auburn boosters would have had him whacked years ago. He is immortal.
As much as I don't love an sec move necessarily , adding ND only works if they end up in a position where the media deal is more favorable than what they get with the ACC+NBC now, and even then adding them and WVU ain't bumping our tv revenue up to be competitive with the SEC/BIG.
Adding ND would not do a whole lot given the drag Pitt, BC and Syracuse have on football.
It's kind of funny to look at the early Southern Conference which had 11 of the current SEC teams and five of the "The Magnificent Seven".
ND gives the ACC more bargaining power, and makes us instantly more valuable to espn.
NBC is considering paying $75m for 6 ND home games. ESPN would be thrilled to have 8-9 ND home games.
But this is why ND won't join the acc full time, so it's a moot conversation
Run it back!
You mean we were being called Va Tech In 1909?
This always seemed like the weirdest hill to die on to me. A significant portion of the population, the media, and our athletes call it Va Tech. Mike Vick called it Va Tech on MNF when I was a student. Let it go.
I actually like VA Tech, except the way Cowherd says it.
I'm with you, it's time the fan base embraces it. Croots need to stop saying Virginia Tech University though.
Yes. We are Virginia Tech and we are a university, but we are not Virginia Tech University. Technically we're Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
I don't care what they call us as long as they're committing to VT.
"I never liked the Vah Tech University Hookies. I'm taking my talents to Vermont."
You're assuming that the current SEC East would remain the same and only add VT.
But there will be much more expansion going on. Divisions and schedule rotations will have to be completely redrawn. For all we know, we could end up playing all of the current ACC teams, but get an SEC paycheck.
No I'm saying those are the schools closest geographically to us and therefore the ones we'll most likely play the most
Again, not factoring in other teams that would be joining with or before us. Also, there could be a completely different scheduling model that they use at that point that will rotate more through the conference. Heck, we don't even know what they're planning for a 16 team league once Texas and Oklahoma join.
The reason the ACC never did North/South divisions is because the North would have been the old Big East + uva, and that would have upset a lot of people. But I could see the SEC not being bothered by creating a division that is basically "old ACC".
But it's like someone said above, if we aspire to win more than just our division or conference, eventually we'll have to play and beat the Alabamas and Georgias. If not during the regular season, then during the postseason.
You could be right in that those are the teams we would always play. But there's too many variables going on to assume that.
With that many teams, they'd realistically have to go to four divisions, IMO.
While this is one of the best and only moves available so you have to try it, there is absolutely 0% chance that ND football ever joins the ACC or any new conference resembling the ACC. ND football will be independent until the money that conferences are getting becomes so exorbitant that they have to join and then it certainly won't be so they can play in the ACC
I like the idea but it just isn't grounded in reality. Financially, there is no saving the ACC and it'll always be a tier or 2 below the SEC and Big Ten. The second schools like UNC, FSU, and Clemson can leave they are going to do it. It's inevitable, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it, and if those schools leave our TV contract gets ripped up and renegotiated for something far worse than we currently have. Notre Dame will never entertain the thought of joining in football, it's a pipe dream to ever think they would.
Our prospects right now are either get left behind by college athletics, ending up in a badly inferior Big XII and slowly fade away in essentially Division 2, or join the SEC or B1G and hope having equal footing in revenue streams props us up and allows us to rebound quickly.
Last time I checked, no conference has ever kicked out one of its members.
I just don't see it happening.
Weren't we kicked out of the Metro?
And wasn't Temple kicked out of the Big East?
We were left out of the formation of a new conference after trying to court a Big East offer. That is not even close to the same thing.
You got me on temple, I don't recall that one, but a quick google search shows me that these are probably not comparable situations, and it's not like dropping them gave way for a bright future to the now football powerhouse Big East.
VT and VCU were kicked out of the Metro before they formed the Great Midwest Conference. Louisville spearheaded that effort. (Fuck Louisville.)
Methinks you need to read these.
^^^^^^ Truth ^^^^^^
This whole series from Will Stewart is outstanding and worth the time for those who may not have lived through the turmoil.
VT wandered through the conference desert for a long time and now that we are finally in the conference we had eyed for years, the conference itself has tied a monetary boat anchor to its own members and tossed everyone in middle of the ocean.
Temple was indeed kicked out of the Big East
Big East kicked Temple out based on performance.
Edit: Too slow in responding.
It has happened, but only really poorly managed conferences. Big East did it to Temple and they have gone the way of the dodo. When you start talking unequal revenue sharing and contraction to satisfy some members, your conference is doomed.
I agree with most of your comment, but I'd actually keep Duke. Their basketball brand has got to count for something right? I realize basketball is worth less than football and as much as we may hate to admit it, Duke basketball is a big deal.
I wouldn't be shocked if Duke ends up in the Big East. They're a perfect fit
Duke, Wake, Syracuse, and BC need to merge with current Big East or form some sort of new league with those other small, private, and basketball-centric schools. They could maybe be associate members of the American or Sun Belt for football. Duke basketball doesn't bring enough value in comparison to football. They're a small school with small alumni base mostly in the northeast with a lot of bandwagon basketball fans.
How much of Duke's brand is actually Coach K's brand? Without him coaching, I have hard time believing they are going to return to the heights of his tenure. But even that revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to what their football brand would need to bring to the table.
This would be the dream scenario, but it's not happening IMO. Let's say ESPN decides that the ACC has the best media markets, they can't afford to let it fall apart, so they reopen the television contract, and ACC payout jumps from ~$25m/school to ~$40m/school. That still puts us at 60% of the SEC's revenue. On (I think) Sons of Saturday interview, Whit says we need to be making at least 70% of what the SEC makes to remain competitive.
SEC Divisions are going to be dismantled in 2024.
I'm not sure this is entirely true... David Teel wrote a piece about TV ratings: In the last 10 years, there have been 74 ACC games (meaning 148 appearances by ACC teams; ie 2 ACC teams in each game) that drew audiences >2m viewers. 62 of those appearances were Clemson or FSU. The next highest is Miami at 15 and VT at 12.
Teal admits that "Part of the data hinges on whom you play, when, and on what channel. But television appeal also hinges on brand recognition and performance."
The point is, VT is significantly closer to the "5 G5's" than we are to Clemson or FSU.
While I would support this because I think it is better for the sport, I can't find any evidence that WVU would bump ACC viewership (or bring any additional revenue). This piece breaks down viewership from 2021. WVU averaged just under 950k viewers per televised game, BUT had 4.5m viewers when they played Oklahoma... If you remove that game, their average drops to 627k viewers per game, which puts them in the same conversation as UVA and Louisville. Does the ACC really need to add another UVA?
You think the ACC hasn't done this already? Come on. ND is asking NBC for $75m/year. I don't think they'll get it, but I bet they get more than $50m/year. That's double what every ACC school is getting.
Money aside, ND LOVES their independence. As long as they can stay financial viable as an independent (which I think they can), they have zero incentive to leave.
This is your personal opinion, but I think an SEC slate would be way more interesting.
IF we are fortunate enough to land an SEC bid, that would come with games against Appalachian rivals Tennessee and Kentucky. South Carolina is only 4 hours from Blacksburg, and we get into recruiting battles against them often. Presumably we'd still play UVA (if they land on their feet), and at least one of the North Carolina schools (possible both public schools). All in all, we could be playing between 3 and 6 football teams each year who are in our geographic footprint. I'd argue that's more than we do in the ACC.
Regarding TV ratings, Teels analysis is from the last 10 years and we were still 4th despite being mediocre the whole time. Would look a lot different I bet for the previous 10.
A DISTANT fourth. Clemson & FSU each had 3x what we had.
Tough to say given that the TV landscape was very different from 2003-2013. Until 2011ish it was still tough for a VT fan in Atlanta to watch all 12 VT games.
I get your point - if VT won 10+ games 8/10 years and won half the ACC championships in that time period, we'd probably have much better viewership - HOWEVER there's a lot of people in the media who think that is not possible for VT in the modern college football environment. The notion that VT is attractive to the SEC depends on (1) our TV footprint being valuable and (2) the assumption that VT can regain national relevance if moved to a nationally relevant conference. I personally believe both of these things to be true, but I am both biased and uninformed (relative to the decision makers here).
There are also some heavy disclaimers that need to be addressed when talking about ratings. VT has regularly been shelved to the ACCN on random filler time slots and this does drive our ratings down. However, the reason we keep getting put in those slots is because we regularly draw enough that is maximizes people tuning in during those times from the games that were available to air. Whenever we slot back into ESPN and ESPN2 broadcasts on a better timeslot, our ratings do bump back up to numbers more in line with the rest.
Totally agree, and Teel acknowledges this (and I did in my initial post in this thread as well).
I'm yet to see anyone do a true regression that accounts for TV network, time slot, opponent, record, etc. It wouldn't be that difficult either if you had the data.
But, honestly, until I see VT get an SEC invite, I'm going to be skeptical that we are a top choice. I think we're a good fit, but I've read too many different opinions from people who I think are quite knowledgable to be convinced that I'm right.
Here you go.
Yea, that was posted ~6 hours after my above comment. I replied to it. It was very interesting data.
Posting while scrolling invariably comes back to bite me in the ass. /sigh
It's all good
Agree to disagree on opponents. Kentucky moves the needle for me about as much as Boston College. Like playing the NC schools way more than South Carolina, I just really don't care about them as a brand. Ditto Vanderbilt and the Mississippi schools.
Tennessee is a great opponent. Florida would be cool every so often but for ever year there's just no history there. A Florida or Georgia rivalry is only worth it to me if it's competitive ie we win at least 40%+ of the games. Alabama and LSU same thing. Auburn I really don't care for, maybe that could make them a cool rival, but it would be like Pitt where it's straight up for the hate, not like I'd be excited to play them every year
IDK, as someone who loves the whole sport I just love the idea of traveling to these amazing places to see VT play. Other than Clemson and FSU (and of course VT), there aren't really any 'must see' destinations in the ACC. The SEC is different. I'd love to experience LSU at night, Toomer's Corner, the Swamp, the Hedges, etc.
YES! I love visiting the iconic stadiums like Notre Dame and the 'Shoe (especially when we win!) and WOULD have loved going to the Big House and Happy Valley (F you Michigan and PSU) and Camp Randall (poss FU to Wisky since this series has been on hold for years/decades (20?30? IDK at this point lol)-maybe before I am put in the ground lol). and looking forward (in theory at least) to visiting Tuscaloosa and the Grove in the mid 2030s, and even Vandy in Nashville in '24 (and maybe road trip to Arizona or BYU if I'm alive ... /s sorta)
No one is excited about this year's home slate. The last time an SEC team came to Blacksburg there were literal riots in the streets (the good kind?). Who was that coach we beat in 2002? The coach of the defending SEC champ LSU Tigers?
I don't think the rights can be broken without the dissolution of the ACC.
I completely agree. I'd much rather stay in the ACC and play against regional rivalries instead of going to the SEC and losing all hope of winning a conference championship. Having the extra money does not guarantee success. If that were the case Texas A&M and Texas would be winning the national championship every year.
But being poor (by CFB SEC/B10 standards) does guarantee that a national championship is impossible.
Editing to elaborate on this... Being in the SEC would raise our ceiling:
Yeah achieving stability in the SEC is much easier than it is in the ACC even if that means we're not top of the conference every year we can put out quality football year in and year out and that will pay dividends in the future when eventually we repeat this cycle away from the P2 back to smaller conferences.
Also with only 2-3 major conferences no one is really caring about conference championships near as much, it'll be more about who you play after conference play.
Really well put. I like how succinctly you phrased it.
Ironically, the ACC is the longest tenured major conference in the country.
Not for long, methinks.
I was referring to team/program stability, though that probably does rely and tie into the stability of the conference as a whole.
It would likely ensure a stable, lower ceiling.
Are we basing this on age of the conference or something else? Because the Big Ten is the only conference that predates the 20th century. ACC is the third or fourth oldest of the P5 (depending on how you count the history of the Pac-12).
I mean its been about 10 years since we had any realistic hope of winning the ACC in any given year with the way FSU and Clemson peaked.
Meh if we had a decent to good team outside of the Deshaun Watson and Trevor Lawrence years we could've won. Hell even when Clemson had Watson we were a handful of yards and a two point conversion from winning it
yes, like Boston College, FSU, Syracuse, etc.
we don't have much hope of winning a conference championship in the ACC either anymore. The ACC is getting left behind by other leagues. We can't even recruit players from our own back yard (just look at the comments on the Everett miss). Unless we get into one of the P2 leagues we're not going to be able to pull the talent we will need to win a conference title. Having the SEC schedule to sell to recruits who want to showcase their talents against the best players in the country for the NFL scouts is pretty much the only way we will ever be able to recruit the types of players we need to win a title (of any kind, conference or otherwise).
this is the only part of your post that I agree with. But NOT having extra money does guarantee a much tougher route to any level of success. If you want VT to be relevant in 10 years, you should be rooting for us to get TF out of the sinking ship that is the ACC.
Their struggles relative to their balance sheets is certainly amusing - but let's not pretend that these two programs aren't a lot closer to winning a national championship than VT will ever be (especially if we stay put in the ACC)
You hit the nail on the head here.
I will take exception to this comment though:
I think we can win the ACC. Our ceiling in the ACC is performing like Mark Dantonio did at Michigan State, and having a 5 year window where we're top 10ish, maybe win the conference once or twice, get an autobid to the playoff, and get blown out by a top 5-10 team. But I don't think this is a sustainable strategy - as you saw with Dantanio. It requires a lot of luck. We would need the rest of the ACC to be down.
Assuming no one is able to break the GoR and the 14.5 team ACC stays in tact, I think the ACC will get 1-2 teams in to the playoff every year, with ND getting in every could years as well. However, I think the floor for the SEC is 3 teams, and I think they could get as may as 5-6 teams in some years.
I agree here. Ceiling is higher if we can land a couple classes like Dabo did to get started- build a brand through actually winning BCS games, with high octane players, etc.
landing those classes, though, is becoming exponentially more difficult in the ACC. The best recruits want to play against the best athletes, who they believe are in the SEC and B1G. They don't want to play against Duke, UVA, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Wake Forrest, UNC, NC State, Louisville, ECU, ODU, Western Kentucky, and Marshall. Our ceiling would be higher if we got those recruits. But we don't have much to sell them. That's the rub.
Absolutely agree. Modern college football is the ultimate chicken egg world. It really is.
The best athletes are going to the Big 10? Just say Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and sure you can include USC when they get there. Let's be real here.
So if they go Big 10 they're competing against the best athletes twice a year, with the possibility of three times when USC joins.
it's about perception. Not reality. The perception is that the SEC and the B1G are the best leagues with the best athletes. The best recruits want to go to the "best" leagues to play against the "best" athletes. Perception is incredibly powerful.
Do people really think that about the Big 10 though? It's three really big schools and a bunch of snoozers. That's the perception too. Nobody gives a shit about Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, Rutgers, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern or Nebraska.
For the SEC it's definitely real. I've talked to enough people around the sport to know that. Teams like South Carolina and the Mississppi's benefit a ton in recruiting from that perception. Never heard anyone say something remotely similar about the Big 10. Only Ohio State and Michigan
just curious -- in terms of national profile, do you think these programs have a higher profile, lower profile, or about the same as VT's?
Iowa is definitely a greater national profile than us. I think that amongst older fans, VT is perceived to be a more prestigious football program than all the others on the list. To current recruits? Probably going to vary by geography, but I'd wager they value a VT offer equally to those other programs listed.
In basketball Maryland and Purdue 100% absolutely have a bigger national profile than VT. At this moment, Iowa and Nebraska football about equal to VT football in national profile
Iowa the same, but in terms of being a draw I think we have the potential to be significantly higher. Nebraska about the same now, they have the potential to a better draw.
But to recruits in our region we should have a higher profile and carry more weight than any of those yes. And playing UNC, NC State, Miami, Clemson, FSU will be more interesting for the majority of them than playing any of those other teams
The perception about the B1G is that only Ohio State has the athletes and speed to compete with the SEC. Harbaugh getting wiped out by TCU re-enforces that. Nobody else thinks Maryland, Penn State, Minny, Wisky, Sparty have "better athletes" than ACC schools. Nobody
If you're looking for more empirical data:
There's obviously some missing context; number of teams per conference, amount of turnover per team, a handful of teams providing the majority of the draft picks, etc. BUT the point stands: In the last 4 drafts, the B10 has significantly out performed the ACC in the draft, and is (more often than not) closer to the SEC than the ACC.
Edit: missed 2021 - ACC had 42 draftees and the B10 had 44.
Lol! That's like saying together Virginia Tech and Alabama have won 6 national titles since 2009.
Sure "the Big 10" has all those draft picks, but go through it you're gonna see a lot more Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State beside the names than anyone else
for a long time we said the same thing about the SEC. The SEC had a bunch of titles and draft picks but they were mostly from 3 schools (Bama, LSU, Florida). Now look at the league. The B1G is headed in that direction and the ACC is going backwards.
I'm not really sure what your argument is. The B1G isn't the SEC. But it is closer to the SEC than it is to the ACC and that is the point. Recruits, their families, their coaches, friends and fans all have a perception that the SEC is king and the B1G is very solidly in 2nd and then there is everyone else. And the ACC is quickly falling to the back of the pack. Clemson, UNC, FSU, and Miami will still have some recruiting clout longer than other ACC teams but in 5 years time it will be nearly impossible for an ACC team (that isn't one of the four I mention) to bring in a class remotely in the neighborhood of the recruiting classes that the SEC and, eventually, the B1G will be hauling in. Because good players aren't going to want to play in the ACC. They want to be in the SEC or the B1G
Recruits don't choose a Big 10 school over another conference because they're in the Big 10.
Here's another way at looking at the data - here's the amount of teams from each conference that have had 5 or more players drafted in a given season:
As you can see, it's not like OSU is the only team in the B10 getting kids drafted. In the last 5 drafts, the best season for the ACC has been the worst season for the B10.
I agree that the B10 does not have the nationwide cache that the SEC does. But I think the evidence clearly shows that B10 is either (a) more attractive, or (b) has more teams that are attractive to top athletes than the ACC does.
Thank you. Recruits don't think about the conference that way. The only conference where this is true is the SEC. I've talked to guys and family members of guys who have gone to South Carolina just to play in the SEC, when they could have gone to equivalent or better ACC schools.
Guys aren't going to Purdue or Rutgers just to play in the Big 10, that just doesn't happen
Yep, I am firmly SEC or bust at this point.
I mean, according to bar, highschool kids do
They don't. This is offseason brain. It's Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State. Two other teams that do pretty well recruiting are Wisconsin and Michigan State who are semi prestigious and just beefed their NIL packages.
None of the teams in the conference are getting a recruiting boost from the B10 moniker. Recruits are just as likely to go to an ACC, Big 12, PAC 12 school with higher prestige/ a better recruiting pitch
Nobody gives a shit about Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, Rutgers, Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern or Nebraska.
Some people care about Iowa but are teams really dying to go out and schedule them? Are people clamoring to find out "what happened in the Iowa game". Who's saying "I need to get to a TV, Iowa's playing tonight".
That's what I meant with that list.
You could ask the same about us, but I'll counter that yes, there are still a good amount of people not even necessarily fans that will want to turn on a VT game because of the brand. And that spans VA, Maryland, NC, SC, WV
I mean, I am. I think Iowa is the most fascinating team in FBS this year. They are one of the most lopsided teams of all time with a top 5 defense, a top 5 special teams, and a bottom 5 offense. The drama around Gary Barta/Kirk Ferentz/Brian Ferentz is hilarious. Fans paying Bob Stoops to shoot a video about how Brian Ferentz doesn't have to be like his father, and all this culminating in a new contract for Brian that is renewed on the condition that Iowa gets 325 points this year?
From a talent perspective, they were one of the more interesting portal teams - landing Cade McNamera, and two big time receiving targets (TE Eric All and that 4-star recevier from OSU who's name is escaping me). I'm legit fascinated to see what they do on offense this year.
I know I'm a sicko, but I can honestly say I was checking in on, if not watching, every single Iowa game this year. The last 18 months have been absolutely wild.
So what you're saying is, they're playing Beamer Ball? /s
Not quite - the beamerball methodology was that is that a team should try to score in all 3 phases of the game. Iowa says "fuck that, score on offense is dumb. Only Defense and Special Teams can score"
I don't remember the exact stat, but a few games into the season, there was a point where Iowa's defense and special teams were literally out scoring their offense. That's just utterly amazing.
The Athletic recently did a piece interviewing high school coaches inside the ACC footprint talking about the perception their players have about the SEC and B10. Here's a couple cherry picked quotes:
fair enough. I was, perhaps, being hyperbolic here. But I think Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson are going to be able to out-recruit us as long as we stay in the ACC. When we were winning ACC titles we were still able to compete for recruits with the big dogs. But now it is clear the perception is that the SEC and (maybe to a lesser degree) the B1G are far and away the best places to play so the best athletes want to go there (staying home means much less now, especially since we don't have much else to sell). Any recruit that we might be after in "our footprint" who has any kind of interest from an SEC or B1G school is going to be a hard, hard get for us so long as our schedule consists of ACC trash teams and FCS and G5 snoozers. If we can't get the Jimmys and Joes we're going to have a real hard time winning the league. Is it possible? Yeah, but I think it is pretty unlikely in this current reality.
I think your point is that we can't win (consistently) in the ACC without a deeper, and somewhat talented roster. And I agree.
I think Miami, FSU, and Clemson were mostly out-recruiting us when we were dominating in the aughts. We just developed talent better. If we can close the gap enough - eg; we get top 25 talent, and our recruiting rivals bungle top 10-15 talent (a la UNC), this formula can still work.
UNC is interesting... In the early aughts, I don't think we went up against FSU/Clemson often in recruiting. However, we go up against UNC at least 5-10 times per recruiting cycle for high 3-stars and 4-stars (this might be an exaggeration, but it feels this way). We need to beat out PSU and UNC for recruits.
However, we're in a new era of recruiting; NIL and Transfer Portal are also changing the game. If we can capitalize there, we can get enough talent to develop.
you've got part of my point. The part I think you might be missing is this.
Back in the day we may have been out recruited by Clemson, FSU and UNC but the gap wasn't as big and we were probably still getting hidden gems in our backyard (I would contend that recruiting services have dramatically improved the exposure of true talent in recent years, making it harder for a team like VT to snag under-the-radar talent that nobody else is recruiting heavily)
But the real problem, and this is the big part of my point, is that we are losing recruits, that we would have gotten 10 years ago when the perception was that the P5 leagues were more even, to SEC and B1G teams because players don't want to play against garbage ACC teams. The types of recruits we might have gotten 10 years ago are going elsewhere now so it is much more difficult to recruit the types of players we need to even compete with UNC, Clemson and FSU. Closing that gap is much more difficult now than it was 10 years ago. And I don't think we have much to sell (being in the ACC) to the recruits we need to close that gap.
This sounds great but I just don't think we can pull a top 25 class when we have to play in what is clearly the worst of the P5 leagues. Top 25 caliber athletes don't want to play against the likes of Wake Forest and Duke. They want to play against Florida, Georgia and Tennessee.
I 100% agree.
Right now, we're missing out on the high-three star kids that we need to land. I think it starts there - we need to have our pick of 3-stars between Carolina to southern PA. But, when you look at our all time recruiting list, there's not a lot there that we did get... Tim Settle, Tyrod, Ryan Williams, David Wilson were all VA guys that we needed to land and did. We're not landing Kevin Jones again. Kendall we would land again because of the family connection. Tyrod... who knows, probably not.
I think if we can land top 3-star and 4 star talent and develop it, then we can start landing enough players like the ones I mentioned before that we can be decent.
Additionally, this is where the transfer portal comes in. Maybe we can't land Tyrod out of high school any more, but if he goes some where else, splits time with a Sean-Glennon-Equivalent, and wants a new home, why not come back home to VT? We just did that with the DE from Florida.
I don't disagree... but I think that between the new ACC schedule, and some more aggressive OOC scheduling we could work around this. But to your point, I think this is a big challenge.
I think we at least agree that in order to compete in the ACC we need to improve talent. Where I think you and I are struggling to see eye-to-eye is on how realistic/difficult it will be to actually haul in the talent required to win the league.
Otherwise, I think we're on the same page.
I do think recruiting is hard and getting harder for VT in the ACC. If we were to get into one of the P2 we would get an instant, and significant, boost in recruiting that I don't think could be matched by any other single factor.
I saw this article this morning about how FSU isn't happy with the current ACC deal.
And what's really grinding their gears is the thought that UCF will be getting more money than them.
Wishing them success in a way to break this GoR
From everywhere I can tell, it looks like eight is the magic number to vote and dissolve the conference, and thus the grant of rights. To me these seven coming out publicly indicates they have likely had conversations with P2 leagues and feel good about where they stand, and this puts pressure on GT, Louisville, and Pitt to maybe start talking to the Big 12 and join their voting bloc. The big wildcard is ND - honestly I could see them being the silent 8th team right now and just waiting to see how this goes down. I know they value their independence, but they also need a place for their other sports and have to see the writing on the wall. Plus the Big Ten has been keeping a nice spot warm for them for a while now. If they were the 8th team, a 4-4 split to the P2 just makes too much sense. This Magnificent 7 going public is probably the initial warning shot to the ACC to give them a chance to try and respond (pull some rabbit out of the hat wrt revenue which won't happen, or acquiesce to unequal revenue which also likely won't happen/won't be good enough). Then when the ACC has no answer, the seven becomes eight and moves very rapidly.
let us pray
Dear sweet, 9 pound, 8 ounce, Baby Jesus....
The meeting they had with Phillips yesterday had to have included "Look, the status quo will not work for us and we will break the ACC in half if we have to"
Sorry, everytime I hear that phrase, this is what I think of....
Pretty much sums up what I believe is happening, but to fill in the details, I think Notre Dame is most definitely making it the hateful eight. I would suspect their endgame would be to just swap the deal they have with the ACC to the Big Ten. Independent, have a vote, play a rotating schedule in football while maintaining their independence and be a full member in all the other sports aka the have your cake and eat it too plan. With that in pocket they definitely would bring that eighth vote to disband the ACC.
I should check the weather forecast for Amelia Island I suspect it is really heating up.
I don't think Notre Dane gets a vote since they're not a full member of the ACC.
It has been confirmed ND gets a vote - they are a full member in all sports except football, but they have full voting rights.
Don't mind me, just putting this out there for absolutely no reason at all
keep your head on a swivel
Hopefully that is where Va Tech's head is because remaining in the ACC is like having your head on a pike (insert GOT stuff here). And for the remaining ACC schools not in the Mag7, guess where they think their heads are right now and in the future. Big problem-o.
The stammering when trying to formulate words on why we are happy in the ACC speaks a million words
Say it again, and louder for the people in the back!
Anyone else having trouble playing the video?
no, but the video had trouble playing me
Ack, can't watch that with sound at work. Can somebody type out what he says?
"I'd say its in the back of your mind everyday cause you never want to get surprised. I also feel like the ACC's making strides and doing things the right way, trying the.... umm... staying in that.... umm.... revenue realm with the Big Ten and the SEC... umm... Really, if you can be good in football and run a good program, and be broad based you're going to be attractive to any league. We're certainly proud of the one we're in, but you keep your head on a swivel in times like these, and the better we do, the better positioned we are, so its kind of the same goal either way"
On conference realignment: "I'd say it's in the back of your mind every day, 'cause you never want to get surprised. I also feel like the ACC is making strides, doing things the right way, trying to...um...stay in that...um...revenue realm with the Big Ten and the SEC. But really, if you can be good in football, run a good program, and be broad-based, you're going to be attractive to any league. And, we're certainly proud of the one we're in, but you keep your head on a swivel in times like these. And the better we do, the better positioned we are. So it's kind of the same goal either way."
Edit - welp, day drinking.
One thing to keep in mind for the crowd that loves Whit and/or hates Whit - conference realignment is a decision made above his head. He will be a key part, but he will NOT make the final call. That's a Sands / BOV decision.
No doubt, but you know he's a part of the process and kept informed. Sands doesn't seem like the type of person to make a big decision without seeking counsel from Whit/BOV/others when it comes to major athletics issues.
Absolutely, but I've seen the discourse on twitter and elsewhere saying that if we do/don't get in Whit should be held accountable and my point is that these decisions are made way higher up. Whit will advise, but he can't pull the trigger.
I think I see the problem.
"Discourse" is a pretty strong term to use for what happens on Twitter, especially more recently lol.
You mistyped "until recently"...
I don't think there has really been a change in the quality of "discourse" on twitter. That is, I don't think it is necessarily better or worse, recently. I think the pendulum might have swung from one side to the other a bit but the actual level of "discourse" is about the same, IMO
Sure, if you solely consider "discourse" to be the peanut gallery responses.
IMO, allowing more information and not allowing as much censorship, is a net plus for discourse - regardless of the level (or lack thereof) of mature and reasoned responses.
I don't think we can really continue the discussion here given where it is inevitably headed but I think allowing more information also allows more misinformation which is equally, if not more so, troubling as censorship. Kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, I guess.
Misnformation is in the eye of the beholder.
At least now, people have a greater (to some degree) opportunity to hear both sides and sift out what is actually information categorized as misinformation and vice versa - neither of which was previously (or still is) uncommon. And that is improved discourse. It is not perfect discourse - as the framers intended.
The only people who don't like this are those whose no longer get their confirmation biases affirmed in an information/opinion echo chamber.
You're right. Now all sorts of people get to read untrue things and then parrot them as gospel truth and spread them with no accountability or recourse. We've taken the problem of biased media and we've crowdsourced it to the mob only to find out that people are not only stupid, but also irresponsibly confident when they can hide behind a keyboard and the new problem is so much worse. So, now we have bullshit like QAnon. Different doesn't mean better...
Whit is as much of the process as Sands wants him to be. Sands could assume he's an expert in the space, or Whit might be completely in the dark, like Texas A&M's AD when they switched to the SEC. Regardless, Whit won't be a decision maker.
Great point! My assumption, based on Sands very limited focus on athletics, is that he relies heavily on Whit for this decision. Certainly will give the approval, along with BOV, but Whit is an absolutely critical player in the decision and the positioning to get us there, as sands is way over his head in this space
So yes, I do think Whit will be and should be accountable either way.
No, he is absolutely not. In this situation, Whit is at most a gopher, fetching numbers and building spreadsheets for Sands. I cannot stress this enough - Whit has zero input about what conference we do/don't land in.
I actually think its fortunate we have Sands in place at this time, because the next step is all about setting aside the comfort of operating business as usual and being willing to take that step that pushes VT forward, even if that means acting like a school we haven't realized that we've become.
Turning our back on the ACC, a conference that the VT administration dreamed of being invited into for the better part of 50 years, and hopping to the SEC or Big Ten is not a move that many around VT are going to be comfortable to make, but its a necessary move to solidify the future of the school as a national brand. I'm very glad that this decision and negotiation is up to Sands and not someone like Steger.
I really hope you are right!
Adding to this... Sands is not picking a conference based on football (not that Sands will have his pick of landing spots, but let's pretend he does); he's picking based on what's best for the university.
Do some reading on how SEC universities are benefit from their increased profile: more applicants, better applicants, a more diverse applicant pool, more donations, etc. Sands cares about applications and quality candidates. He knows that football can help drive that.
I think both the Big Ten and SEC would offer benefits to the university as a whole but in different ways. With the Big Ten, you have many other large research universities and the potential for tons of additional money and collaboration if we achieve AAU status in the next 5-10 years. But on the flip side, with the SEC, I think we would generate such an overall profile bump (applications and donor interest in both academic and athletics sides) that it seems to be the better option to me. We would get a massive additional revenue share payment from the Big Ten no doubt; but I don't think we would get the overall profile bump and interest in athletics that we would get from the SEC. The SEC is viewed as the premier football league in the country. I think it would provide the better recruiting bump for athletics, particularly with football. Plus, there has to be some degree of concern over whether conference like the B1G stretching from NJ to NE to CA is truly going to be feasible long-term. Whereas presumable SEC expansion seems like just locking down and further cementing the southern footprint where we have better geographic peers and travel in all sports.
This of course assumes there is a choice, which there may not be. But if I had to pick between the two, I think the SEC is the better fit for the long-haul.
So, he's responsible for the decision, even though he has no authority to make the decision. At most he will be able to offer advice, but the decision makers are free to completely ignore his advice, yet he will be held responsible for the decision made by others.
Ok, I'm going to hold you personally responsible for the outcome of my next colonoscopy. Either way, you are accountable for the results. I'm willing to entertain your diet/health advice, but even if I completely ignore your advice, I'm holding you responsible for my colon.
Considering Sands wants to turn VT in Penn State, he better not fuck this up.
He sounded just as authentic there as the "We're not firing Fuente" press conference
I'm still terrified we end up in the Big12.
Logically we wouldn't be part of this conversation if we weren't looking at the B1G or SEC but in the past logic has surpassed out administration and athletic department.
Even if we do end up in the Big12, just having a chance to renegotiate a TV deal prior to 2036 is an improvement over our current situation. Busting out of the ACC for anything better than the AAC is an improvement over our current situation. We can talk current-day-on-field-product all day long, but we (and every other acc team) are financially screwed in the short, medium, and long term if we don't find some way out of the current arrangement.
The Big 12's deal will pay out an average of $380 million per year — or about $31.6 million per school. That's about the same as the ACC's current revenue. The ACC's current package dates back to 2016. In 2021, ACC schools brought in about $36 million each, according to tax returns.
Playing BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU and West Virginia is better than being in the ACC?
The problem isn't 31.6 MM vs 36 MM, nor is it the on-field product. The problem is we are stuck in our deal until 2036 while the other conferences get to re-negotiate before then. More specifically the SEC and the B1G are lapping us every year financially, and will have an opportunity to re-up again before we have a chance to do the same. We can't be $20MM or more behind other P5 teams every year for the next five years, but we REALLY can't be $20MM (or more) behind the other P5 teams every year for the next 13 years.
And as for on-field product - you're right, there's no marquee names in the Big 12 right now. I say, who cares? We haven't exactly been getting primetime matchups in the ACC anyway.
Excluding Clemson, we have hosted 5 home games against top 10 ranked ACC opponents since we joined the ACC, only two of those have happened in the past 10 years, and one of those matchups was an overhyped UNC. Again, excluding Clemson, we've been getting our exciting matchups in the non-conference slate ever since we joined the ACC.
[Arguably, you can include our home games against ND, as they're only playing us because we're in the ACC, but I didn't include them because they're not an ACC team, and because including them undermines my point ;) ]
(#10 2021 UNC, who finished unranked in the polls)
(#9 2020 Miami, who finished #22 in the polls)
(#8 2012 Florida State, who finished #10 in the polls)
(#9 2009 Miami, who finished #19 in the polls)
(#2 2007 Boston College, who finished #10 in the polls)
UNC was not overrated, we just beat the will to play our of them! Had they not played us they would have gone on to finished 7th.
Okay but this doesn't mean we should actually join the Big 12. 1) Even if when they renegotiate they eventually pass us, the ACC brands are still much more valuable, so long term when we get to negotiate that number will be higher than the Big 12's. Also the travel costs and possible fan disinterest would mandate the Big 12's payouts be significantly higher than the ACC's for us to move. And more importantly 2) If we have the ability to join the Big 12 if means the GoR have been dissolved and the ACC does have the ability to renegotiate, completely nullifying the only reason to join the Big 12 in the first place.
Edit: Adding a thread that says what I just did and more.
This might be a comment I made in a different thread? But I recently discovered it's incorrect. The ACC distributed $36m to each school, but only $25m of that is from our regular season TV deal. The rest is from NCAA basketball tournament, and CFB post season.
Give me SEC football games and a chance to beat Buzz Williams in basketball every year PLZ
For those who want a more pessimistic/realistic take:
This is probably the Duke or Wake Forest AD lol.
Bhahahaha. A revenue sharing plan that rewards on field success? FSU and Clemson aren't dumb. Unless that plan means they get ALL the money, whatever share they get for winning will be drops in the ocean compared to BIG and SEC teams. That's who they want to compete with. They aren't gonna be content getting extra nickels when 10th place Minnesota is pulling in a dollar. Extremely wishful thinking here. This is over. It's just a matter of when. Whether they get it done this summer, next summer or 2 years from now, these teams are bolting.
Doesn't include tv revenue in the performance-based plan. So what exact revenue are they talking about? Bowl revenue? That won't even come close to bridging the gap.
I think they're talking about playoff revenue from the new playoff system. Regardless of what it is, this is just a stopgap. Something to keep the ship afloat in the short term. We're in the stage of a doomed marriage when one side does a gesture to reignite the spark even though both partners deep down know its over
On mobile, so I'll dig up the breakdown later, but Bowl revenue + playoff revenue is about 1/3 of ACC take home. So if a handful of teams could keep that money, it could be quite lucrative. Still not enough to compete with the SEC IMO.
So, if the top half of the ACC keeps all the post season revenue, their take home would be equal with that of the SEC. HOWEVER, the SEC's new contract is significantly more, and the expanded playoff will make more as well.
So the gap will only continue to widen, and IMO, the chances of the other half of the league voting to have no postseason revenue share are slim to none. I don't see how it even passes.
Hmm...that could lead to everyone just keeping their own bowl payout. So teams in the CFP/NY6 would get a few million, while those 6-6 teams in the Damn Glad to Be Here Bowl would be lucky to hit $1M, and then the teams that stay home get nothing.
Sounds like a jilted soon to be ex that is in denial that the marriage is crumbling.
Maybe... I'm preparing to be disappointed though. Hopefully we get out and go to the P2, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Oh I am absolutely getting my hopes up!
Wow, honestly pretty candid interview from Whit. Saying about as much as you possibly could at this point in time and in our position. I feel good about where we are and who we are aligned with after all that has come out this week.
Thanks for sharing this. Really insightful, candid interview.
Good to see UVA knows their place.
Little brother always does
So you're saying there's a chance that Shane Beamer returns to Blacksburg, except as USCe head coach for an away game?
Currently scheduled for.... *checks notes*..... 2035
Scenario I keep thinking about is the Big Ten pouncing on FSU and Clemson. They make sense as new markets to get into. At least a few SEC members will try to resist adding them and they could miss their chance. I also think they add UNC and Miami and maybe UVA as well.
Honestly that could be best case scenario for us, because the SEC would likely respond by adding us and NC State. The SEC brand still means much more in recruiting (and also probably promotion) than the B10 does and would give us the resources to own this region of the country without having to worry as much about Penn State, Clemson, FSU, UNC, etc. Thoughts?
I see the ACC taking FSU and Clemson to solidify football. They'd have every national champion, except Ohio St, for the past 20 years. I think they also take VT and NC state to expand their foot print / cable $$$. Florida and S. Carolina may not like it, but they'd be out voted.
For the B1G, I think they take UVA and UNC to expand their footprint / cable $$$ and their all around athletics and academics. The other 2 for B1G could be a number of teams (ND, GT, Oregon, UW, or Kansas for cable $$$ and basketball).
I think the governments of VA and NC will approve of this as long as their two public state schools have good places to land.
FTFY I THINK ..unless it was/s and not a typo
Oops, it was definitely a typo!
I think this is exactly how the cookie will crumble. You can replace the name of the teams that get pounced on first with whoever you want but I think when the dust settles we are invited to join the SEC.
Honestly, I think the first ones to get snapped up will be the ones that add free money, being tv subscriptions in what are now out-of-market areas and the lucrative carriage fees that come with them. And the big obvious ones right now are VT, UVa, UNC, and NCSU. Clemson and FSU are intriguing, but I honestly don't think they want to go to the Big Ten, and I don't think any objections internally at the SEC are going to stop them from coming in (A&M couldn't stop Texas from coming in, so I highly doubt SCar or UF are going to stop Clemson or FSU).
The only hang-up I see is if state legislature forces UNC and NCSU as well as VT and UVa to be tied at the hip. If they do, I could all 4 ending up at either conference. If they are joined only so long as they each get an invite to one of the P2, I could see UNC/UVa to the B1G and VT/NCSU to the SEC.
Once those 4 are dealt with, then you go after the big national brands. This is where Clemson, FSU and ND come in. And then its just filling out the rest to get to the final numbers you want.
I also find it interesting listening to the Ross Dellenger/Pat Forde podcast and seeing some other national writers mention that Kevin Warren last year was super close to moving ahead with Oregon and Washington, but the money just wasn't there to add them and keep per team payouts whole. Plus that USC wasn't super keen on Oregon and Washington coming along so they could dominate CA recruiting. Some talk that the new Big Ten commissioner might be looking east for expansion, and maybe if the PAC 12 implodes they could get Oregon/Washington later at a reduced payout. So if you take it for what it's worth and Oregon/Washington are off the table for the moment for the B1G, things might get very interesting in the mid-Atlantic.
Would the state handcuff their flagship schools like that? As long as no one is being left out in the cold then I don't see where it would be an issue. NOW if one of UVA or VT is going to get the shaft I can see the state stepping in and trying to protect one of the 2.
Honestly the above is how it should look and I think all fan bases and conferences would be satisfied with the results.
Yeah that's where I think it'll be interesting. I could definitely see situations where VT and UVa are forced to be a package deal. The government strong armed them before, and I have previously heard whispers that the same dynamic was in play which caused the SEC to go Texas A&M and Missouri rather than Texas A&M and Virginia Tech in their earlier expansion.
With all of that said, I do think the state legislatures would be ok with UVa going Big Ten and VT going SEC as long as there was a permanent scheduling agreement in place. Just so long as neither is left to rot in the Big 12 or worse.
I'm onboard with this. If anything bringing both the Big 10 and the SEC to the state of Virginia is huge. Keep the out of conference rivalry in place for the two teams.
I'm not to worried about any of the mag 7 or 8 being left behind. The only way this goes through is if they all have a home. The only way it could go wrong is if someone originally left out of the mag 7 suddenly finds a landing spot in what they consider to be a best case scenario through a backdoor deal. That could have a ripple effect of guaranteed landing spots.
I think you're right, in that the linchpins are (in order of perceived importance) UNC, UVA, VT, NCSU. One from each state to each P2 conference, with the bigger national brands following. It absolutely will NOT be just the four, because you're gonna need 8 to break out of the ACC (if that is even a confirmed number). So there
will beare ongoing negotiations behind the scenes to create package deals to the two P2 conferences.
Do Clemson and FSU double up on states in the SEC, or will their academics force the B1G to hold their nose while swallowing them up?
Does GT's location in Georgia (a talent-rich and populous state) and athletic potential move the needle enough for the B1G, which is a fit from the academic side? (Doubtful it does for the SEC.)
Ditto for Miami, with more emphasis on athletic potential. Maybe a better shot at the SEC if FSU goes to the B1G.
What about Notre Dame? Is this when they finally join a conference? I don't know if I see the B1G making the same arrangement with ND that the ACC did. Could ND stay independent and rejoin the Big East for all other sports?
If this all goes down and the P2 becomes a thing, ND will essentially be given an ultimatum to either join the B1G or be left behind.
There is an obvious conclusion here that ends up with an NFL style playoff at the end of the year where the champion of the Big Ten and the champion of the SEC play in the National Championship Game, excluding everyone else. My thinking is that we end up with 2 leagues (SEC and Big Ten) that each have 2 conferences of 2 divisions of 5 or 6 teams each (conference size being 20-24 teams each). Makes for a very lucrative 8 team playoff every year that probably dwarfs anything else out there in terms of money making potential.
And ND will need to join the Big Ten to be a part of it.
That's the path I've been seeing all along. Because then the B1G and SEC are both guaranteed 50% of every CFP. But since we're already at the point of a 12 team playoff, then that's probably going to be the minimum going forward.
I think not - No tips or insider info... I just don't think the SEC wants to double up in any state except Texas (because there's enough recruits to go around there). Florida also has a shitton of talent, but I think UF (as a founding member) has more sway than TAMU or SCar and will nix FSU or Miami.
For what it's worth, in the most recent US News ratings, FSU is ranked ~10 spots above VT. Their president wants to be an AAU school too. and Clemson is ~10 spots below us. Coincidently, Clemson is tied with PSU and MSU for the 77th best school.
I know these rankings are bullshit, but school presidents care about them, so they matter.
ND is keeping their football independence until it (a) is no longer financial viable or (b) keeps them out of the post season. I've posted this comment at least twice in this thread already, but it appears that independence it's quite doable financially for ND. And they have a path to the post season every year. So ND stays independent in football.
Option you're not considering: The Mag7 leave the ACC, ND returns to football independence, but remains in the ACC for all other sports. IMO the most unlikely part of this is the Mag 7 all leaving.
If the Mag 7 do leave for the P2 and ND doesn't join the Big Ten, I could totally see them aligning their other sports with Duke/Wake/BC/Cuse and exploring some merger with the Big East, and also keeping their football independence.
I don't think Duke/Wake/Cuse/BC want to totally fold their football programs though, but I also don't think they care about making a ton of money from football either. I wonder if instead of being an associate member of another conference for football-only if they could stroke some deal with ND/NBC to be independents and they all play each other every year, with NBC giving some small tv payout to those other four.
So ND would vote to dissolve the GOR, but then remain as is within the conference? That doesn't seem likely. In this scenario, who would be the eighth vote? Louisville, to go to the Big XII-II-II+II+II-II+X?
Great question - There's a variety of ways it could go:
But I agree, this scenario is unlikely.
SEC is already doubled up in Mississippi and Alabama -- i don't think it makes any sense for them to also avoid any other double ups for the sake of avoiding double ups
I don't think they're avoiding 'doubling up' for TV/revenue reasons; I think Florida, Georgia, SC, and Kentucky want to remain the only SEC schools in their respective states because it's a major recruiting advantage. And, I believe that because three of those four are founding members, they'll have political sway to stop FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville (really just FSU and Clemson) from joining the conference.
It's been that way since the conference was founded in 1932. Different situation.
I think the ACC might be a little more stable than we think right now, from the simple fact that teams 7 and 8 won't break the contract unless they have a guaranteed landing spot in one of the top 2 conferences.
Right now we're pretty sure teams 1-4 have spots, but less sure about 5-7. I'm very doubtful that team 8, likely Louisville, Pitt or Georgia Tech has a landing spot in the Big 10 or SEC. If they don't, it makes more sense to keep the conference together and hold everyone hostage than it does to break the GoR just so you can travel to Texas 5-6 times a year for less money.
I could see this stalemate lasting several years, with the way out being a renegotiation with ESPN. If ESPN sees the real possibility of losing several good properties to Fox, is it not within their interest to at least pay market price in order to keep those properties within the fold? In that case the deal would probably still last until 2036, but at a better rate that would satisfy concerns and keep the league together at least until the end of the contract
That is an interesting angle. I don't know if the Hokies can realistically expect to have a landing spot as #5-7 but I think they have to try and do something. Staying in the ACC as-is without a renegotiation is pretty much certain irrelevance. The B1G and SEC will crush us and then even the B12 and PAC will pull ahead. It is better to take a shot at something promising, even if the odds are 20% versus staying in a dying ACC. Worst case is we go B12 or someplace else and make similar money.
Overall, though, I find myself caring less and less about college football. We're not in the B1G or SEC and we'll probably never be one of the 8 or so power schools. The portal and NCAA have killed collegiate sports for me. Pry is basically going to have to re-recruit the roster every season. The best players will move to a USC or Alabama. We'll fill the gap with a standout from a G5 school. It is a joke. Schools technically can't pay players but collectives are giving 18-year olds a pile of money to play there. Student athletics is a crock. A guy can easily transfer twice (free transfer and then the "hardship" transfer where they are coached from day 1 at new school to see a counselor and plant the seeds that they are homesick or have another excuse); they are moving between schools but are the credits all transferring or is a player going to be out of eligibility and short of credits to graduate.
Let's blow up the ACC and then blow up college football.
I have the same cynical view as you but I am coming to terms with that is just the way it is. If worse comes to worse we take our risk and it doesn't work out then let's just back down a league and try and win D1AA National Championships LOL.
Been trending that way for me. I find myself following the Braves and Falcons a lot more. The NFL at least has some semblance of competitive parity.
I've had a similar thought as well:
This would be disappointing I suppose
So if the schools don't get a majority vote (maybe the 7 even know this won't happen) perhaps it's a play of "well we tried and couldn't get it done so now we're gonna bolt" politicking
Or perhaps give one of the schools at the bottom of the food chain a reason to explore other smaller conferences with even revenue share to establish that majority needed to dissolve the ACC
Read yesterday that it apparently will take 10 of 15 votes (two-thirds) to pass unequal revenue sharing, with ND getting a full vote.
The more I listen to and consume media around the whole mag7 situation, the more I'm convinced no one is leaving the ACC any time soon.
Agree, just more false hope for no reason
Define "soon". A vote this summer? Most likely not. Probably not within a year either. But I'd bet its happening sometime between 2 and 4 years from now, 5 at the latest. And it damn sure ain't making until the end of the current contract.
Contract ends in 2036... I don't think any current ACC team plays a season in another conference until 2030 at earliest. Maybe in 2027 someone announces they're leaving then three years of legal battles ensue. Something like that.
The other thing that could happen is the conference completely falls apart, with 8+ schools leaving... but for that to happen, those 8+ schools need landing spots. I don't think the B10, SEC, B12 collectively want 8 ACC schools. I don't think that will happen. What is more likely is 2-4 schools announce 10 years ahead of time that they are leaving at the end of the ACC Contract to go to the SEC/B10. Then another 2 schools announce they're leaving. Then another 2. Then there's enough for the conference to fold early.
The thing I keep coming back to... If the GoR could have been broken, someone would have challenged it by now. The fact that no one has challenged it yet means (a) they don't think they can, (b) they don't have a landing spot, or (c) both.
I think the GoR is pretty iron clad and don't think there's any way to challenge it. However, I think the only way to defeat it is to vote as a conference to amend or dissolve it, or to dissolve the conference entirely, rendering the media rights granted to the ACC and assigned to ESPN effectively void. The problem is, a) voting to amend/dissolve the GoR solves nothing because the ACC won't get anymore revenue than it has now by renegotiang, b)they need enough votes to dissolve the conference (which they may have now), and c) they all need better landing spots (I'm of the mindset if the Mag 7 has come out publicly now as having looked into dissolution, they have had back channel conversations with P2 leagues and feel confident they have a spot. I think ND is a huge silent player in this too. No one is siding with this voting bloc to go to the Big 12 or worse, but I also think the P2 need some assurance that if the ACC dissolves and they extend official invites that the GoR is truly void. Which leads me to my next point).
I think this is going to end up in litigation one way or another. The Mag 7 IMO right now is putting pressure on the ACC to allow them an opportunity to try and find a solution. If they just broke off and didn't let it be painfully obvious for the record that the ACC was given an opportunity and just had no answers, you better believe the ACC is suing those schools and the P2 the day they go elsewhere and alleging all sorts of contractual claims/conspiracy/tortious interference/etc. They may even try to assert that with assigning the ACC schools' rights to ESPN, dissolving the league doesn't void the GoR. Fox and ESPN could even get into a battle unless they agree to compromise. I think the Mag 7 letting the ACC basically demonstrate they were put on notice of the revenue issue and had no answers, it helps ease concerns about future litigation once the split inevitably happens. Just my opinion.
Logically, I agree with you. There's just one place I disagree - I think these two statements are mutually exclusive:
I don't think there's enough landing spots in the P2 for 8 current ACC teams. In order to break the GoR, I think some teams are going to have to break it knowing that they are going to the B12.
I think the SEC and B1G are going to push it to 24 or 32. Both are currently at 16 (counting the incoming teams). Sending 4 ACC teams to each of those conferences only puts them at 20, and still gives the B1G some room for Oregon and Washington (and possibly their State counterparts if required by law).
To me, the wildcard here is the Big 12. They looked like they were circling the drain a couple of years ago, but then they hired some people who actually knew what they were doing and actually managed to get their number back up to 12. So I think they might be the last roadblock to a Power 2 structure.
If the conferences expand to 20+, the Big 12 can absolutely be competitive by taking some of the ACC and PAC 12 leftovers. Not competitive in media revenue, but definitely on the field
Why? Do you really think that, in the SEC for example, adding 8 teams will increase the bottom line for everyone? I don't.
There's speculation that they won't even try to add at all. Godfrey has said they might be more interested in UNC and Virginia Tech than Clemson or Florida State because they're new media markets
Because they've never shown signs of ending expansion at any size. A lot of people thought that 12 was the magic number for conferences, until they started pushing it to 14, and now 16.
At this point, I think the only saturation limit is the total number of schools at the P5 level. I think that number is somewhere around 64. There are currently 69 P5 teams, and I think the ones joining those ranks this year are the last teams worthy to be considered at that level. And of course, there are a few teams already at the P5 level that shouldn't be, but they're already grandfathered in because they made the right moves at the right time.
Maybe it makes more sense to cap the conferences around 20-24 teams. But, if the Power 5 can contract down to a Power 2, then those two conferences can guarantee themselves 50% of all playoff revenue every year.
Now, dropping down to a Power 4 would probably be a better model for the sport. But I think the main factors against that include the general weakness of the Pac-12, the crappy ACC TV deal, decisions and alignments that have already been made, and geography.
I hope you are correct, but I think you are very, very wrong. No one expands for expansion's sake; conferences expand for money. Will adding VT to the SEC make each team's slice of the pie bigger? Maybe. Are there 8 (available) teams that can do this? No.
Conference expansion will occur when there is money to be made. If the numbers don't work, nobody will be coming to rescue va tech. The sec doesn't need marginal teams as their fans are rabid about the product they have now. The south has tons of college football fans, many of which never went to college.The big ten has huge alumni bases as schools are massive, and they don't need marginal schools either. Both will take on new schools when the numbers work with the appropriate markets.
Someone may have already pointed this out, but even if each additional school added doesn't increase the take, it is possible that killing off the competition as a whole will add money. In other words, adding VT to the SEC in a vacuum may reduce each school's payout, but if it's part of a series of moves that means the ACC no longer exists as a football conference, the SEC pockets a ton more money as it has claim to millions more fans and there is very little competition in its footprint. Isn't this basically what ESPN tried with the Big 12? While they have bounced back a little (still not confident they survive), there is even less of a safety net for the ACC now that B12 snapped up the more desirable G5 teams to shore itself up.
I tend to agree with your view, but to play devils advocate - if the P5 really becomes a true P2, the schools in the P2 may be ok with having a smaller slice of a larger pie.
So the SEC and B10 are going to gobble up schools from the ACC/B12/P12, kill off those conferences, then each member school will take less money?
I think the revenue streams become more valuable with less competition -- if there's no PAC/ACC to challenge and B12 becomes the little brother, then the value of the SEC/B1G media rights, etc etc goes way up
If they can set up an insular postseason playoff, there is a shitload of money to be made that they won't have to share with anyone else. So yeah, you're right, the future earnings potential of a P2 with no ACC/PAC competition has the possibility to really take off, so I could see an extra incentive to gut the ACC to the point where there's nothing remotely attractive left.
Step 1 has to be a Football/Basketball split. The big east, acc, and big 12 are the 3 best hoops leagues. CBS/TNT pays billions for that tourney. They aren't going to pay that for a B1G/SEC only dance. no way.
The big east, acc, and big 12 are the 3 best hoops leagues.
And this has been where I've been thinking. In a two conference system, each conference is guaranteed 50% of each round of the CFP regardless of size.
Under the current 4-team system, a conference's take is still based on number of participants and outcome of games. Even if the SEC gets two teams in the CFP, the only guarantee they have going into the games is 50% of the first round. Then they get either 100%, 50%, or 0% of the championship game depending on the early outcomes.
I think what they're saying is that if the pie eventually gets big enough, even if you get a smaller % than you do today, the overall number is so much larger you still take home more money
Others have articulated the point better than I have, but I'm basically saying I can see the SEC and B1G killing off the remaining P5 conferences, thereby increasing the total value of the SEC and B1G tv deals to a point where having a smaller percentage of the tv deal still nets more money.
Not a perfect analogy, but would you rather receive 100% of your local burger joint's revenue or 10% of McDonalds revenue?
But in that situation, member schools are still taking home more money. I'm saying that:
As someone said above:
I don't think the SEC has any reason to expand, unless they can add a school that will bring each current member school more dollars.
I think the thought being expressed is more of a short term "loss leader" type strategy.
Does adding 4 more schools to the SEC necessarily add more money for each member school right away? Possibly no, depending on the schools (although I imagine provisions could be written into the deals to join that would address that)
But would killing off a conference like the ACC, that would ultimately lead to higher TV revenue due to A) lack of regional broadcast competition and B) networks need for content end up being a better deal for the member schools in the end? Probably.
It's the same idea behind why Costco will sell you a hot dog for $1.50, or a rotisserie chiicken. They don't care to lose money on those in the very short term, because most people are not walking out of a Costco trip without spending $100 or so, even if they only went in to get the hot dog in the first place.
I would say the average is $200-300; it was already usually that much when my (now ex)-wife used to go and that was back in the 1990s...
Costco hotdogs were the exact example I was going to use! I can't get out of there for less than $125, but at least I saved $2 on a hotdog.
Or (d) there weren't enough schools that were willing to vote to dissolve it. No one school can challenge it, it takes eight.
That's a decent group of football programs. And basketball.
They deserve a competitive TV deal, if some loophole can be found.
Don't forget about adding quality BBall to the SEC. Continuing the excellent TV programming to continue after the Football season would be a serious plus for any conference adding us.
Especially the girls this year, they are going to go to the show again.
By that same vein, it also doesn't hurt at all that our baseball team hosted a super-regional last year and has shown dedicated efforts on the field and financially, to investing in the sport.
The SEC is really strong in the big 3 sports (including women's bball and softball). I think that is super important to the vision of the SEC, as football, basketball, and baseball/softball are the most likely to make revenue or come close to breaking even. And I think that VT being nationally relevant in all these sports greatly increases their attractiveness to the SEC as well.
The SEC has tossed many other collegiate sports, including men's soccer, wrestling, gymnastics, field hockey, women's rowing, and lacrosse. SEC schools generally keep a much cleaner balance sheet than ACC, Big10, and PAC12 schools that have greater emphasis on non-rev sports. VT will have to find homes for other these sports or streamline their athletics department.
If the SEC or B1G really want certain teams, what is stopping them from extending the offer to join at some point in the future? Is the buy out for ACC member institutions from the GOR feasible by 28' or 30' for example?
It would completely fuck the ACC bargaining power going forward, but so would teams unilaterally leaving now for those left out
I think it's not really so much a "buyout" from the GoR. The problem is, unless the GoR is amended or abolished by dissolving the league, any ACC team is free to leave (after paying the exit fee) and go to any conference they wish - but the ACC still owns that school's media rights entirely until the expiration of the GoR in 2036. Meaning we can join the SEC now, but our games are still shown on ACCN and we/the SEC get absolutely nothing for it for the next 13 years. The only endgame I see to this is the ACC entirely imploding - no one can survive the revenue gap for that long. And no official conference invites will be extended until that GoR is completely defeated.
That is what they do. USC/UCLA contracted with the B1G two years ahead of entering the conference. Texas and OU contracted with the SEC three years ahead of entering the conference. And in both instances, the schools had not formally disengaged with their current conference. It was more-or-less sign for a future enrollment in the Big10/SEC and work it out with their current conference prior to that enrollment. UCLA also had to work it out with the UC school system, which was a lot more dramatic than what made the headlines. It was not clear UCLA would be granted permission to join the Big10 for awhile, but a revenue sharing agreement was made.
But, would Big10/SEC contract that far out into the future (5 to 8 years)? Maybe, but I think there is a desire to make things happen sooner rather than later. But I also think that ACC schools are hesitant to agree to such terms because the GoR is way longer than that and if they do it alone, they wouldn't have the bargaining power or financial resource to overcome the GoR.
The thing that cracks me up, and what leads me to believe that so many really just don't understand why these things are happening, is seeing so many people hype up UNC football as why they are attractive to the SEC or B1G.
Absolutely not. There is very little passion around the UNC football program. Having lived in NC for the better part of 40 years now, believe me, if UNC football has a few down years, nobody is going to care as long as UNC basketball doesn't suck. Its what allowed them to wallow is mediocrity from the minute Mack Brown left for Texas to the minute Mack Brown came out of retirement, and the primary reason why they are probably going to suck once he retires again. There's no long term accountability for UNC football, everything they have right now is fleeting, their fanbase is almost nonexistent and the program itself is viewed as a sideshow distraction for the start of basketball season. VT might be down right now, but for a sustained period under Bunting, UNC was far worse. Their brand did nothing to help.
Now, is UNC a valuable brand? Absolutely, one of the largest collegiate brands out there, but the primary driver of this is basketball. And when push comes to shove, UNC is going to pour money into making sure the basketball program stays elite before they spend a dime on football. If the SEC or Big Ten invite them in, there is absolutely no guarantee that UNC is going to spend any of that additional revenue to prop up football, in fact they're probably going to dump most of it all to basketball to keep their power there. UVa has the exact same resume as a potential addition. Strong academics, yes. Strong basketball, yes. Strong athletic department, absolutely. But they have 50+ years of evidence showing they do not care to invest in football and will not make it a priority.
And this is why, in the end, I actually do think that VT and NCSU might actually be more coveted to the SEC or Big Ten. Are either school getting the hype as being the class of the ACC right now? No, god no. Do either of them have the strongest national brand? No. But what they both have is a proven historical track record of diverting and directing money to their football programs to intentionally put them on a level playing field, financially, with their peers while keeping the rest of their programs competitive. If you're the SEC, that's the kind of school you want to invite in, because you know they'll invest to be a strong football program and not worry they'll fall to the bottom. And if they fall, you know they're not going to massively underfund football at the expense of others.
Random "insider" but he's been right on a few things in the past. A little while ago he had a post about how cfb was gonna move to a 60 team breakaway (P2, 30 teams each) in the coming years and how you'll start to hear talk of movement within the coming weeks, then days later we got that report from McMurphy that just so happened to have enough ACC schools that would be needed to break the GOR.
Anyway, if what he's saying is true, then you know the ACC is done. UNC has been ride or die for the ACC. Even back when they expanded back in the early 00s, they were heavily protective of the ACC and fought letting teams in. But now they are ready to leave? You know its over when UNC is like "yeah, we out". As I keep saying, this is only a matter of time now. The ACC is dead.
Interesting stuff. Obviously twitter chatter but this particular account has been right on a few things the past year or so and had some good info as you point out. Seems to indicate a Big Ten target list of ND, UNC, UVA, and a Florida school, with them really cooling on Oregon and Washington as has been suggested. Have to think if that's truly the case, that bodes very well for us to the SEC.
Maybe those 7 (or 8 teams) break away to form their own conference and negotiate a new TV deal. It won't be as large as the current ACC contract but only divided amongst 8 teams with the ability to use Clemson & FSU to negotiate football and UNC & uva to drive basketball inclusion in the big picture. I would think Fox or Amazon Prime would pay for that package. And it creates a holding place until the next reshuffle.
I could see Alabama, LSU and others feeling like the SEC is getting crowded and they may want a power play in a few years to take more of the pie.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This meat grinder of conference realignment has gone on forever. The next generation comes along with a "new idea" that is the same idea as a few generations earlier, but the generation in between those had a "new idea" that was better than the old way. Same thing happens in management of most businesses. Stay around long enough and it'll come full circle again.
We've been in the same conference with most of the teams from the ACC & SEC before, it didn't last long. 100 years ago the old Southern Conference had Alabama, Auburn, Georiga, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Miss State, Ole Miss, Tenn, Vanderbilt, Clemson, South Carolina, UNC, NC State, UVA, VT, LSU, Florida and Duke among others.
If we do end up with 2 big super conferences, that'll last for a decade or so, then someone will feel they are getting shafted and they will spit up into a half dozen smaller conferences, rinse and repeat.
So now everyone is happy again with some revenue sharing based on performance. Meh, this is the Bengay on cancer treatment, and I am sure the FSU AD is 800% committed until he realizes the ACC is still dying on the financial vine.
Pretty sure the nuclear solution will be on the table soon if not already, cause this solution (?) ain't gonna cut it.
All the ACC (@Swofford) needed to do, was negotiate a respectable TV Deal; on par with the Top Two FBS Conferences...
If we do go to the SEC, I hope we don't play the Aggies annually. They treat most Hokies like one of their own (I can vouch for this personally), and I don't want things to be awkward. Plus, I'll be spending the next 19-20 months in CSTX at their Mays Business School for my long-delayed postgrad.
I'd be fine if we played the Vols annually.
UVA belongs in the Big Ten.
Louisville and Pitt hold all the cards right now and here is why:
IF the Mag 7 all have a P2 landing spots and IF the ACC can be dissolved by a majority vote (8), then only one team needs to join the 7. We essentially have a standoff right now. One of the not-so-Mag 7 will need to jump over. It's unlikely that teams like WF, Cuse, BC, or Duke will have an offer from P2 or Big 12. It's also unlikely the P2 pick up Louisville or Pitt.
However, Louisville and Pitt would make excellent additions to the Big 12. While the Big 12 deal isn't as good as P2, it is better than the ACC. Would a team like Louisville or Pitt decide it's worth jumping ship for the Big 12 $? I think so but an offer has to come. Without an offer to one of those schools, we will continue to be in a disgruntled conference.
See I don't think they're satisfied with the Big 12. The ACC makes them more money short term, and even with the bad deal the ACC is a better group of brands and way better for travel.
I think the only way there's a shot to break the GoR is if the Big 10 decides they want GT. Atlanta market and great academic school, there's a lot for them to like there. But the odds of the B10 taking GT AND the other seven schools getting landing spots in the Big 10 or SEC is very small imo.
Maybe someone like NC State or UVA can be tricked into breaking the GoR by assuming they have a landing spot when they don't. You'd assume with a decision this big everyone would do their due diligence, but that's also totally something either of those schools would do (saying that as a State alum).
I do feel UVA is overvaluing themselves. On every thread, they feel as though they are a lock to the BIG 10 due to being in Virginia and having AAU status.
But they are forgetting what is driving this- eyeballs and football, two areas UVA severely lacks in. Just because they are physically located in VA, doesn't mean they get the VA viewers. UVA is behind VT in Richmond and Hampton Roads, and probably 4th in DC/NoVA behind VT, UMD, and PSU (and the BIG 10 already has 2 out of those 3). They bring little value added in terms of subscriptions and viewers.
I don't know if the B1G has the same carriage deal (or something similar) to the SEC but if they do then it doesn't really matter if they have the viewers. The B1G would have an instate team in VA which they don't currently have and would get all of the subscriber revenue regardless of whether those subscribers actually watch the games or not
I agree the Big 10 would probably take them, but they wouldn't be near as valuable as a Miami, Florida State, North Carolina or even VT or NC State. They're probably on par with a Georgia Tech
I thought this too, but I know a lot of SEC fans, and I'd imagine that 60% think UVA is a better fit than VT. For what it's worth.
I am not convinced of this. I think it would be mostly viewed as another Vandy (but public this time). Maybe their NCAAM natty has some weight to people, but the SEC is a football conference first and VT has some respect on it still. That varnish is wearing off, though. I am not sure the SEC wants us in 2037, but they want us now.
I tend to agree with you, but I've heard enough people dissent that I think I'm missing something. I keep hearing that UVA's investment in Basketball and Baseball is very attractive to the SEC, and that some people think VT and UVA are equal from a football perspective.
I think VT and UVA's futures are once again intertwined. But I'm not sure it's a given that VT is the more attractive option. That would have been the case 5-10 years ago.
Nobody on earth hates UVA more than me. Nobody. And it pains me to write this. But they are a more valuable and attractive "brand" than VT to any major conference. The slight - ever slight - at the very moment difference in football is more than off-set by them falling out of bed and winning Olympic national titles often. Their hoops program is much better than ours overall too- Bennett wins 75% of his ACC games FFS.
I think UNC+UVA is very enticing for the Big Ten. Agree with you that it's painful to say, but the entire package that UVA offers academically, the well-rounded athletic department, and massive endowment all make them a very attractive candidate for the B1G, which heavily values academics. I think UNC is their top prize from the ACC, but it makes too much sense to lock down both VA and NC and take a peer institution in UVA. Too much potential revenue opportunity with those states combined.
I don't see the Big Ten as a realistic option for VT given what they value and that UVA and UNC better fit that profile. We've got to hope SEC or bust at this point and that the SEC also will also want to tap into the VA/NC markets and not cede them entirely to the B1G. Whit has done a great job over the last decade raising our overall sports profile, but we have struggled mightily in football which is of paramount importance to the SEC. Do they still think we have the potential and same interest they had in us over a decade ago? That remains to be seen.
Why wouldn't they be enticing for the SEC? They're not football brands, but the conference doesn't need to be more competitive in football.
SEC doesn't even offer men's soccer or lacrosse, which are sports both of those schools have nattys in. Just don't think the SEC offers all of the non-rev sports and competition level those two would want, and definitely not the number of academic/research peers they would want to be with.
That is a great point that I did not know about!
I know we are down in football right now, but as Alum07 mentioned, if this is our low-water mark as a program, we still have great tv ratings, fill our stadium, travel well, and are a very football-oriented school in a valuable new market for the SEC. The SEC is big in football, baseball/softball, and up and coming in basketball. We are a football school, have invested tremendously in baseball and softball programs over the last decade, and have been investing in basketball and would be a top third type of basketball program in the SEC regularly in both men's and women's. Also in terms of academics/research, instead of getting swallowed up in the B1G, it would basically be Vanderbilt, Florida, Texas/Georgia and VT at the forefront there.
Would revive a UVA-UMD LAX rivalry too.
Bama. Georgia. LSU. Those fans dress up for football games. UVA fits that culture more than VT does. What terrifies me is that UVA lands in the P2 and VT gets left in the cold. That is a nightmare that could become reality.
I originally typed this out elsewhere and have been storing it, but I think it fits to address your worry.
Speaking of VT, yes the team is the worst its been in 30 years, we suck on the field, we lose to shitty programs, and we aren't sniffing a bowl this year. But even with all of this being true, the team still draws good ratings, the fanbase still travels, and they still sell out the stadium on game days. VT will always prioritize football spending over everything else. If this is the worst this program is going to be, its still better than anything you're going to see out of places like Vandy, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern, etc.
Compare that to a UNC. Right now, they might have a good team, but they still don't get great ratings when they're on TV, and they struggle to sell out Kenan for anything that isn't a matchup against a team that travels. They're an excellent basketball brand, but if you're talking pure football, their peak is about the same as the valley of someone like NCSU or VT. When push comes to shove, UNC will pour money into basketball before they give a dime to football. The exact same situation applies for UVa as well, except they currently suck in football.
Combine that with the out of market tv rights in play in Virginia, and that is why VT is attractive, and why they are higher up on any list than anyone gives them credit for. In the big picture, you're not going to leave a VT to the Big 12. You're leaving money on the table if you do, and people who are looking to hoard money just don't do that. Yeah, you're adding a current depressed asset in football, but there's 30+ years of evidence to show they'll put the extra money your conference gives them to good use and you can trust they will hold their own, or at least be held accountable enough to not let the bad times continue for too long.
Well you can rest easy knowing that they're not more valuable than we are. The Football Basketball relationship is 80-20 as far as money goes. Football drives the bus and even if we were on equal footing as far as record we being way more as a brand and fan base. Also we aren't that far behind in basketball. They won a championship but have been only decent since. We've made the same amount of tournaments they have since 2016 (all but one)
Thankfully fans don't get to vote on new schools, but I am kind of glad we got good at baseball for that exact reason. The SEC super cares about baseball and like no other conference really cares. I doubt it moves the needle, but it might tip the scale.
I do find it wild though because when Im in Alabama (got friends down there) the talk about VT is like a ribbing of peers and UVA is legit laughed at. But that could be because I am in my 30's. Younger and older results may vary.
I think that what your missing is that the average SEC fan really only cares about maintaining SEC dominance in football. They don't give two shits which teams from NC and VA are added as long as:
1. per-team conference revenues increase,
2. already difficult football schedules don't get even worse,
3. the new schools improve the conference's academic reputation.
Outside of Clemson and possibly F$U, they don't view any ACC team as a competitive threat in football, which is why teams like UNC and UVA are so valuable when it comes to expansion. They're competitive enough in football without being a real challenge, they have high-profile bball programs, and they're highly-regarded academic institutions.
having read a lot of social media about this over the last few days, I get the overwhelming impression that the vast majority of fans don't know their asshole from a sinkhole when it comes to how and why schools are actually desirable to a conference.
It's not just fans - Andy Staples for example has talked on his podcast about UVA being more desirable than VT.
If we've learned anything from the last 10 years of realignment, it's that nothing is true until it actually happens. I don't know if VT is actually more attractive than UVA - I personally do, but there are people (in and not in the sport) who's opinion I trust, who think that UVA is more attractive - the reality is, until moves are actually made, we just don't know.
The more I hear from national media on Virginia Tech football, the more it becomes clear that they think our success is only because of Beamer. Which, he of course was the man that built our program. But, they believe Virginia Tech can't be successful without a Beamer type of coach and otherwise we'll be mediocre at best. Unfortunately, the further we get from Frank Beamer as HC, the worse we have gotten. So we haven't really shown any evidence to the contrary.
The question is, does the national media understand what moves the needle for conferences? Because if they're thinking about the football program's current competitive status and not thinking in terms of how much money the program could bring in, then you aren't thinking about it correctly. Any media member that talks about revenue/TV money thinks we're more sought after. Anyone who talks about competition on the field, we are naturally slide down the list.
It's not just that Beamer was a generational coach... A lot of people believe that VT was able to capitalize on a time/space of the college football landscape that no longer exists, and will never exist again. It's not at all an unreasonable take IMO.
Honestly, I don't think anyone does. Everyone in the industry knows what makes money today, but no one knows what the future holds. Will the cable bundle continue to be viable or will it collapse? Will Streaming take off or win customers continue to sign up and churn?
Similar to above, adding VT to your conference (again, assuming we're on the market, which we're not at the moment) is a bet on our future. It's not a given.
At the current rate, staying in the ACC is a path to literally becoming the Little Sisters of the Poor.
I mean the brands have value, we're just 1) locked into a shit deal and 2) quite literally throwing away money by paying equal shares to teams like Wake and Boston College who don't generate any revenue for the league
At some point, the product has to match the marketing materials. That just doesn't happen in the ACC, and it's a problem.
The B10 has at least 4 good teams every year. The SEC has at least 6. The ACC got a shit TV contract because no one delivers. There's been one season in the history of this conference where enough 'brands' actually delivered: 2016.
Agree with this. But UNC appears to have a top 10 type draft pick at QB. In the acc, that can carry you a long long long way. We joke them, but the last several times we have played them on the road they have destroyed us. I would bet a future now that Mack Brown will leave there with a winning record vs. VT.
Hey DC- check the AMA thread....Fernley is deferring to you- you're the next contestant on the Summer TKP user AMA series!
I am one half a very complicated man. I am also one half a very, very simple man. The simple half is begging, pleading, for someone with an ounce of insider info....speak the fuck up. I cannot read much more, for the lack of a better term, fodder (no offense, seriously). My eyes hurt.
The latest free Split Zone Duo podcast pointed to the most likely outcome is that teams that make the playoff keep most or all of the conference playoff bonus ($6M). Godfrey also laughed that this whole ordeal was being led by FSU (instead of Clemson) and that schools like unc, VT, and uva are involved at all, due to their national irrelevance...
Are you saying Godfrey was laughing at other people saying UNC, VT, and UVA are irrelevant or that he believes those schools are irrelevant himself?
Both. It was on the free show if you want to listen to it.
Basically, he was arguing that 6 of the Mag7 schools haven't been nationally relevant for over a decade (some argument around FSU), so the amount of indignation these schools are feeling is completely disproportional to their standing in college football universe. And this irritated him.
He's not wrong.
Godfrey was absolutely right that 6 of the 7 have been nationally irrelevant, including VT, but it feels like Godfrey has a bit of a disconnect. None of these 6 teams have been consistently good for a while. The argument was never "we're good so we deserve more." The argument is "we generate more money so we deserve more."
Now I don't know the actual numbers there. But, these are different arguments so I don't know if his point holds up as well in this context.
But, (per reports) any unequal revenue share that the ACC agrees to is going to be related to performance, not viewership...
Which then begs the question, if you need to perform better to get more money, but you can't perform in today's landscape without more money, seems like the money will just always go to the better programs right? Rich get richer.
So, first of all, it depends how you define 'better' - if an uneven revenue share was started 3 years ago, Pitt and Wake would be thriving. Would this make them a 'better' program than FSU, VT, or UNC?
I think money raises the ceiling for both a program's national title aspirations, as well as a program's consistency (ie; how rare down season occur). But I also think you can be a top 4 ACC team despite a financial disadvantage - just look at Pitt and Wake over the last 5 years.
The sport has always been this way - we haven't had a first time national champion since the 1996 Florida Gators. Even if you only count post-integration national champions (1971 or later?), the last 'first time' national champion was probably 2003 LSU? And they were coached by the greatest coach of all time (who has mangled fan expectations across the sport, and will hopefully be retiring soon, but I digress).
Over the last 30ish years, how many Virginia Tech's were there? AKA Schools that rose from obscurity to have a 10+ year run of national relevance? Thinking through it... VT, Boise, Oregon... Maybe LSU and Florida... That's all I can think of off the top of my head. So maybe 5 programs? Well, depending on who you ask, there's between 8 and 14 'bluebloods', which is more than the number of teams that have risen to have sustained relevance.
Why did I type this out? Mainly because I don't feel like working right now, but also because when college football fans say things like 'the rich are getting richer,' it usually comes with some implication that it's hurting the sport. The reality is the rich have always been very rich, and it's been over 30 years since a school could (relatively) easily go from being middle class to wealthy, and for the most part, people really enjoyed the sport over than 30 year period. The sport will be fine moving forward.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
Since the BCS, VT amd Oregon are the only two teams to play in the national title game they had not previously won a title.
Maybe that's what they're discussing in negotiations right now, but that was not FSU's point when they opened this can of worms about unequal revenue sharing. FSU was saying that their viewership was bigger and they believed they were bringing in more money to the ACC in relation to most other members
I'm not saying Godfrey is wrong, but it feels like the argument and justification has shifted away from the original point. I'm not sure how relevant on field performance is when we're talking revenue and who "deserves" a bigger cut.
All of this is me trying to say that I don't remember the free SZD episode touching on the specifics of the ACC negotiations. It felt like Godfrey made a snap reaction about the "Magnificent 7" to laugh at 6 of these schools because of recent on field performance. I agree that it's fair game to laugh about the disconnect between the football quality and revenue/financial argument. It still felt out of character for him to seemingly miss the context around the argument.
Yea, I was a little surprised that Godfrey was so opposed the idea, but I get what he's saying; no one in the Mag7 has done anything in a long ass time to separate their program from the 9 other ACC schools. I think he was basically saying 'you guys are pretty arrogant if you really think you're that much better than these other 9 schools.'
I didn't care so much about his opposition to it. Imo the schools signed into this dumb agreement and they should reap what they sowed.
I more felt like he was missing the point. The SEC isn't adding Texas because they're a dominant team, they're adding them because they're a dominant brand. And that's the point that FSU is making about deserving more ACC revenue. Godfrey has meanwhile mentioned that he thinks if the SEC expanded that adding a Virginia school and an NC school would add the most money. All of this expansion talk and TV revenue centers around money, not on field performance. But, in discussing the "Magnificent 7," he suddenly shifts gears and talks about on field performance. It just doesn't add up to me. I agree that these teams have been irrelevant for the last 10 years, but so have other teams involved in expansion/revenue discussions (namely UCLA and Texas).
His point is that VT UNC UVA and Miami are losing their spots as brands and as draws for network games by not performing and getting more people interested.
Brands aren't static and winning definitely helps build them. But what winning helps most is being a TV draw for any given game. It brings in sidewalk fans and people who aren't fans of the team but want to watch a good game. That's the majority of college football viewers. As sickos we watch our team no matter what but that's not true of everyone
They are also losing their spots as brands and draws by being in the ACC, and that another alignment could help to restore them.
How is being in the ACC hurting the brands? I would say it's helping all of those teams because they're playing opponents that the fan base cares about, if you were to send them up north to play Big Ten schools it could definitely make fans more apathetic
....I don't think this is true. We care about playing (and beating) UVA. And Miami. Well, they got rid of our annual match up with Miami. So now we're playing UVA, Wake and (I don't even remember, Louisville?) every year and everyone else on rotation. So we play one game the fan base cares about every year.
I think our fans would be a lot more jazzed about playing Tennessee and South Carolina every year than Louisville and Wake.
I forgot about how shafted we got with the pods system... that alone was enough to warrant joining the Mag7 imo.
UNC and their tobacco road cronies have been doing everything they can to screw VT ever since we got into the league (much to their chagrin) so it's no surprise at all that this new scheduling system sucks for us
I can pretty definitively say our fan base is a lot more happy playing UVA, NC State, UNC, Miami, now Clemson and FSU and even GT, Duke and Pitt instead of Indiana, Rutgers, Michigan State, Maryland and especially any of the snoozers in the Big 10 West.
The SEC has so many brands it's a different conversation for sure. We do have the big rivalry with Tennessee that's fun. But even so do you think fans would be that much more jazzed to watch us play SC, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Missouri, the Mississippi's and get dunked on by Florida, Georgia and occasionally Bama and LSU? I think it's a push at least, personally I like the ACC schedule better. These are our peers in the region and the teams we have history with. Only gripe is I'd like to play WVU more, Miami and UNC every year, and less Wake BC and Cuse. Other than that I'm pretty happy with our ACC opponents
That's all well and good but the ACC is getting lapped by the other leagues and if we don't get out of the ACC the fans aren't going to care about any of the games, regardless of who the opponents are. We're not going to care about playing peers when all of us are totally irrelevant, which is where we are headed.
The ACC is dead. It just hasn't become apparent to everyone yet. If we stay in it, we will die too. IIWII
Why? Most fans do not follow or give a shit about TV contract numbers. We are in the minority. If we moved to the Big Ten it would absolutely hurt fan enthusiasm and not help it. TV contract money has zero, absolutely zero, effect on fan enthusiasm.
The media talking about it is having more of an effect than the actual figures
it's not directly about contract numbers. But the product on the field will not be very enjoyable if the best athletes and coaches are in the P2. And if the product isn't good, the fans won't be interested.
I think you're missing all of the in between stuff that the TV money pays for that allows for fan enthusiasm.
Ok like what? That we can't pay for with the current payout
Do you want to watch a game on ESPN at noon against Wisconsin or on ACC+ against Wake Forest?
Error: Does not compute. We have years of data showing that it is impossible for VT and Wisconsin to actually fulfill any scheduling agreement.
Lets be real. Better comparison is Big Ten Network vs Indiana or ACCN+ vs Pitt. Two average teams in our region. I'll take the second one because it's actually an opponent we have history with.
TV channel I could care less, we might have over/under 1.5 more games on network TV in the Big 10 than the ACC. That's a small price to pay to play against opponents that are actually interesting and in our region
Swofford, is that you?!!
I completely disagree. Fan enthusiasm is driven primarily by winning, and winning is hugely influenced by money. Money lets you hire the best coaches & recruiters, build the best facilities, etc. Great coaching & a productive talent pipeline is what builds a winning culture, and winning is what fills the stands.
How is getting a bigger payout from a new league going to help us win league games? Everyone in the new league will be making the same as us, just like right now
Also, being able to actually watch the game on TV or listen to the game on the radio helps loads.
The past couple years I have not been able to go to each game and also have had loads of problems trying to work out programming info.
This is why I don't think we're going to either conference. The P2 likely gain from our loss of the ACC dwindling to nothing.
For those who don't want the big 12, sure, i understand, but think about if everyone took a chance to do things differently. Lets add UConn into the mix, you then get 28 teams that go into 4 tiers. Everyone plays their tier and then plays a game against another tier (1v2, 3v4) to get to 8 games. You then play a floater conference game to help preserve historical match ups. So 9 conference games and 2 OOC games. Then comes the fun ... the last week of the season Tier 1 place Tier 4 based on the rankings in the conference, likewise Tier 2 plays Tier 3. The winner of Tier 1 v Tier 4 #1 teams plays the winner of 2v3 #1 teams in the championship game (giving you a mini conference tournament)
Let regulation do its work every season so that the cream rises and things get interesting. Worst team in the tier drops, the best rises! This makes the lower tier games interesting. Also Cuse can beat up on a lot of crappy teams and get a shot at the best team in the conference for a title game. Craziness!
This conference has 8 of the top ten TV markets, 14 of the top 25 and 19 of the top 50. No other conference can compete with that. The big ten is the next best with 5 of the top 10 once UCLA/USC joins.
This is THE basketball conference. This is a wide market football conference that has tons of advertising potential. It might not pull money in like the SEC, or even the BIG Ten, but this would be fun as heck. The football schools get to play top teams, the basketball schools do the same. There is a way to improve as you don't have to go through a UNC/Duke/KU stretch of the season unless you are a top team. Basketball could be Tier 1 and 2 all play, same with 3 and 4 and then that leaves 7 games to go to other tiers.
All other sports would be grouped by geography to reduce travel costs, still plays across the conference but would play within the divisions/tiers.
This idea would be too awesome, and thus will never happen
So I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who has contacts close to the UVA Athletic Department. He said that on the first day of the conference, apparently one of the reasons that the ADs didn't want to talk to the press was that there was an argument and that a couple of them had to be physically separated. Not sure which ones were involved, but he said that one was from a Carolina school not named UNC, and none were from VA. Didn't get a chance to delve further into this, but found it interesting that tempers were that hot.
Probably some small dick Wake Forest energy in the room. I swear their fans online have become obnoxious. They actually win a little bit the last couple of years and they are supreme shit talkers, especially directed at VT. F them.
They're just really embracing our new annual, arch rivalry
I think our fans are trolling to make the rivalry interesting. Their fans (very small group) appear to be taking it completely seriously
Ah, yes. A rivalry that the other team barely even notices.
Um we're talking about wake not UVA.
As someone who lives in WS, I completely agree with this. They have a lot of money and believe they belong with the big boys of college athletics. Their fans are extremely obnoxious
My friend left the impression that the Carolina person involved was the NCSt AD, but can't confirm. No clue who the second was.
My guess was gonna be NC State vs FSU. Wolfpack seems to have their number in recent years.
This was debunked already. Nothing happened. Supposedly it was between the NC State AD Boo Corrigan and the Wake Forest AD John Currie and that the Miami AD Dan Radakovich had to separate them. Radakovich has stated on twitter that this did not happen.
You're gonna take the word of some one from Miami? Suspect at best! /s
Don't have a clue if it did or didn't happen, but my friend's source is in a position to know.
This is a great thread, last tweet in particular sums up my view on the situation. The whole semi pro P2 model is unproven and there's a very good chance it ends up being less profitable in the long term while only maximizing short term gains
ACC just agreed to unequal revenue sharing starting in the '24-'25 season. Based on postseason success.
It's a week old, but sharing some Offseason fodder, because why not?
I appreciate the post, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I just find it hard to believe that the B1G has a handshake deal with both schools for a situation that they have no timetable on (and may never happen)
There very well could be political influence in VA that ties the two schools together, but idk how anyone can say with any confidence where schools will end up in the event that conferences fold because who knows what happens between now and then.
If the source is right, its because UVa and VT are legally tied together. And, to be honest, if I'm the Big Ten am I going to deny UVa because we're also being asked to bring in the highest profile football program in the state who, despite not being AAU can absolutely hold its own in terms of academics and research investment?
So yeah, I get it. I wouldn't at all be shocked to see us and UVa moving to the Big Ten.
I'm starting to think UVA and VT are going to move together too. Interesting in Teel's interview with Whit following spring AD meetings, he mentioned he requested an interview with Carla Williams as well (UVA AD), and she said, "Whit speaks for both of us." I think there is a lot of political will in VA to keep VT and UVA tied together, and it makes sense.
UVA might be the big fish in the eyes of the B1G, but VT is also the largest university and is a rapidly growing top research institution in its own right. Plus factor in the economic impact of VT football. It's easy to see why we might be a package deal.
Yeah, and lets not forget that the government already got involved once and strong-armed UVa into getting VT into the ACC when it looked like the Big East was on the verge of collapse. In the end, that was a deal that worked out for everyone, and I strongly suspect that there is alignment between the presidents of both UVa and VT to keep each other a package deal, and that's without assuming the state legislature is going to squeeze either of our scrotums if one tries to leave without the other.
I'm very interested to hear what will happen in NC between UNC and NCSU. Not only because I guarantee you the state will get involved to force them to be a package deal (they've already intervened to pass laws that force NCSU and UNC to play ECU more often) but they're both a part of the same University system where both Chancellors answer to the same President. I strongly suspect that UNC is going to be tied to the hip with NCSU as well.
I also assume that, given Sands background, he'd rather be in the B10. But that's completely unsubstantiated.
Hate it, hopefully the ACC can hold strong for as long as possible 🤞🏼
I don't love it either, but I'd rather have the possibility to be relevant in the B10 than be destined to be irrelevant in the ACC.