(03-31-2013 07:07 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FOOTBALL:
The ACC won it's top 4 affiliated bowls
1. Orange
2. Chick Fil A
3. Russell Athletic
4. Sun

That has NEVER happened before. In fact, we've never even won the top 3 before all in the same year.

BASKETBALL:
4 current teams + 4 future teams in the NCAA; 3 more teams in the NIT

Though everybody knows it doesn't count for the ACC, every football fan in the country is also very aware of the fact that a soon-to-be ACC member beat an SEC elite in the Sugar Bowl. Perception is 3/4 of the battle in this game sometimes.

TRUE. To the average fan the Sugar Bowl win by UL might be bigger than the Orange, Russell an Sun bowl wins. However, I didn't want to muddy the water. Sweeping the top 4 bowls was a MAJOR achievement for the ACC in and of itself. The Sugar bowl was just icing on the cake (no pun intended).

(03-31-2013 05:33 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 07:24 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 10:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I forgot to add that I think that we will have an opportunity to schedule top notch OOC game in the vuture via SEC tie-ins with ESPN and a Big XII scheduling agreement, and I think that our bowl tie-ins will improve.

(This should be HUGE for teams like UL and SU who are having trouble getting home and homes)

I agree with the first part about it being a great year for the ACC but I'm not that in favor of a B12 scheduling agreement. If they still had Nebraska and Texas A&M, it would be one thing but now 2 teams get to play Texas and Oklahoma and the rest get who???? I'd much rather have the open OOC game and let our AD get an attractive match up.

They sent 9 teams bowling this year in a 10 team conference and Oklahoma State was #3 two years ago. I'm not big XII fan, but they aren't without football talent as of late. In fact, both teams flamed out, but WVU and KSU were favorite to play in the NC game at on epoint last season. Had an ACC team played them before they flamed, the ratings would have been very good and that would have reflected positively on the conference.

EDIT
I agree that normally the ACC is stronger. Frankly FSU + Miami + GT + VT + Clemson + Pitt + SU + (1/2)ND > Texas + OU + WVU, but the Big XII has been overachieving and the ACC has been underachieving as of late. If we can benefit from their success and get back on track, then I am all for it.

EDIT X2
It was also mroe directed at teams that are having trouble getting top notch OOC opponents. I know FSU is having trouble getting elite teams to play @FSU. The ACC only has an 8 game schedule, so there are 4 open slots. Worst case scenario, this replaces the slot of a random average team and there is no loss. Best case scenario, either Texas or OU plays you in a home and home.

UL is also having trouble getting decent teams to play them @UL. This would solve a lot of that. They could play an ACC schedule, a Big XII team, a FCS, and a game against UC and their problems are solved 5/7 years.

SU has resorted to playing in the Meadowlands to raise extra money and get top notch teams and a lot of fans are upset about the lost game. This would bring a quality OOC game to the Dome and would alleviate the loss of a elite game being played in NJ. To clarify, SU would like to play a home, an away, and a neutral, but aside from PSU, we have been forced to play an away and a neutral which is upsetting fans. Playing an away, a neutral, and then Big XII BCS team in yearly home and homes doesn't "fix" things, but it does make things easier to swallow. Texas Tech may not be great but it beats the heck out of UCONN, Maine, Rutgers, USF/UCF, Buffalo, and many of our other alternatives.

It would also keep team from (completely) underscheduling like Rutgers does. That creates easy wins, but it hurts the TV value of the conference. I don't know if VTech still does this, but VT is/was notorious for underscheduling.

Just because Kansas State and Oklahoma State have done well in recent years, doesn't mean they are attractive home games. WVU is attractive as a regional rival but if VT wants to schedule them (which they don't) they can just pick up the phone and get them on the schedule. No need to tie the whole conference up to the Big 12. Bottom line, I'm only in favor of an ACC/Big12 alliance if Oklahoma and Texas are coming to Blacksburg. If they're not, it's crap.

Also, I don't remember FSU having any trouble getting marquee teams to play them at home. Didn't they just have a home and home with Oklahoma? On top of playing Florida the last game every year. Seems to me that FSU plays 3 top notch OOC opponents every year. This last year being screwed up because WVU had to pull out at the last minute because of joining the Big 12.

Is this proposed ACC/Big 12 scheduling alliance a way for ND, Texas the ACC and ESPN to try to hold off the SEC and the Big Ten in the short term?

Is it a precursor to a full or almost full (20 school) merger between the ACC and the Big 12 to block a possible 20 school Big Ten that will move into the Southeast?

I don't know but I think that lots of talks are going on behind the scenes between the ACC, Big 12, Texas/ND and ESPN.

Notice that ND has not renewed the NBC deal that expires in 2015?

(03-31-2013 09:27 PM)OrangeXtreme Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 06:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I know Dayrl's plan was to have a 1-1-1 series like we are with PSU where one game is at home, one game is away, and one game is in the Meadowlands. Given that PSU is the only team to agree to those terms, we are clearly having trouble. I know last year was weird bc of WVU, but we settled for a 0-1 deal @Mizzou, and I know TCU leaving screwed things up too, but we had 2 FCS games when they left. That's not particularily promising.

You can't just bring any team to the Meadowlands, or nobody will buy tickets. Has to be a team that will draw in the Metro area to make this work.

PSU, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame.
Maybe Texas or Alabama.
I thought USC would draw better.

The idea might have made sense while SU was still in the BE and needed 5 OOC games every year. It's silly now, especially if ACC games might have to be moved from the Dome to NYC to fulfill the contract.

USC is not a real national draw as far as fans in the stands.

Once they start to regularly lose under Lane Kiffen (more), the Coliseum will be half empty.

(04-01-2013 10:46 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 09:27 PM)OrangeXtreme Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 06:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I know Daryl's plan was to have a 1-1-1 series like we are with PSU where one game is at home, one game is away, and one game is in the Meadowlands. Given that PSU is the only team to agree to those terms, we are clearly having trouble. I know last year was weird bc of WVU, but we settled for a 0-1 deal @Mizzou, and I know TCU leaving screwed things up too, but we had 2 FCS games when they left. That's not particularily promising.

You can't just bring any team to the Meadowlands, or nobody will buy tickets. Has to be a team that will draw in the Metro area to make this work.

PSU, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame.
Maybe Texas or Alabama.
I thought USC would draw better.

The idea might have made sense while SU was still in the BE and needed 5 OOC games every year. It's silly now, especially if ACC games might have to be moved from the Dome to NYC to fulfill the contract.

USC is not a real national draw as far as fans in the stands.

Once they start to regularly lose under Lane Kiffen (more), the Coliseum will be half empty.

Such is life for a private school not named Notre Dame (see Syracuse, BC, Miami). I excluded Northwestern, Vandy, TCU, WF, Duke, and Stanford because they generally don't have a huge following, even when they are good.

(04-01-2013 01:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  2. You may be right, but the Big XII seems to be hot right now, and for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that WVU was a contender during the first half of the season, so it would have worked last year. IMO, the Big XII is good for two sure things: Texas and OU, and one wild card that varies depending on the year.

3. I doubt any Big XII teams would play 2 ACC teams. I think that ACC teams would play Big XII teams 2/3 years and Big XII teams would play ACC teams every year.

4. "On a more important note..." Frankly you make good points, and your logic isn't without merit. However, I think that the Big XII's biggest advantage is that it is very popular in Texas, and Texas is the "hot" state when it comes to recruiting. Florida was big in the 80's and 90's, Calif was big in the 00's and Texas is now. There's very little that the ACC could do that would improve Texas recruiting more than consistently beating Big XII teams would. I honestly think that Miami will come back soon, and FSU will stop under achieving. That would give the ACC two powers in FLorida and a chance to impress Texas recruits, strengthenign the ACC brand in 2/3 most important recruiting states.

5. "B1G in basketball and SEC in football..." I don't think that Fox will let us get the B1G in basketball. The C7 and the B1G will square off, and I think that ESPN will make us play the SEC. It makes more geographic sense for all parties that way and it makes more sense for ESPN's programming. However, I do agree about playing the SEC in football, especially if we are going to get stuck playing them in basketball. The ACC has 4 OOC games comapred to the SEC's 3, the Big XII's 3, the Pac-12's 3, and the B1G's 2. That means that we have up to 2 to burn. We could have a 2nd scheduling agreement with the SEC too. Playing an 8 game ACC schedule, a Big XII/ND game (Big XII 2/3 years, and ND 1/3 years), a SEC game, and 2 other OOC games is not a bad schedule at all. It gives the conference exposure in Texas, and the rest of the deep south (Louisianna, Alabama, and Mississippi), which, when combined with current ACC territory and Texas, would give the conference exposure in 3/4 of the nation's best recruiting areas. I think that it would also help our TV contract, because it would guarentee that every ACC team would play at least 10 quality games every year (keep in mind that we are currently negotiating with ESPN).

2) I don't like the matchups with the Big 12. I'd much rather play a regional or marquee team.

3) So you get Oklahoma and Texas at home once every 30 years? I hope they play in Blacksburg sooner rather than later.

4) On the other hand, not playing the Big 12 because we have something to lose is cowardly. It reminds me of 1993-1995, when UVA was going to stop playing VT.

5) That sucks. I really want that ACC/B1G challenge but everything I've heard says it's going away. The SEC still has 4 OOC games. They didn't want to give up their regular 7 home games a year. How does the B1G only have 2 OOC game? Are they playing 10 conference games a year?

If the ACC/B1G challenge goes away in basketball, NO WAY would I want it replaced by an ACC/SEC "challenge"... the SEC is simply no challenge in that sport. I suppose if it was part of a deal that included a guaranteed football game as well, MAYBE it would be worth it to trade... otherwise, it's essentially a waste of one OOC basketball game per year, IMO. (Hey, if it means Tennessee is forced to finally come to Blacksburg, that would be worth it right there!)

On the other hand, Big XII basketball is much better - most years you can count on Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa St, Texas and WVU to have good teams. This year Texas & WVU were down, but Kansas St and Oklahoma St stepped up. Of course, there are only 10 teams, which is a problem in hoops.

Football wise it works out - 9 ACC teams play Big XII, the other 4 play Notre Dame, and one team plays both. While I have to agree that I'm not overly excited about the Big XII teams other than Texas and Oklahoma, I have to admit that there is at least some intrigue in all of them except for Kansas and Iowa St, IMO.

(03-31-2013 06:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 05:33 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Just because Kansas State and Oklahoma State have done well in recent years, doesn't mean they are attractive home games. WVU is attractive as a regional rival but if VT wants to schedule them (which they don't) they can just pick up the phone and get them on the schedule. No need to tie the whole conference up to the Big 12. Bottom line, I'm only in favor of an ACC/Big12 alliance if Oklahoma and Texas are coming to Blacksburg. If they're not, it's crap.

2. I'm not sure how playing a top 5 team isn't an attractive home game. I guess we fundamentally disagree there.

3. I do agree that every team should get to play every other team (i.e. Texas and OU would eventually have to visit every ACC stadium).

I can actually agree with Chris on this. In the past few years, Lousivilel scheduled games with Utah, Oregon State, and Kansas St. Two of the three were top ten teams when the games were scheduled, and OSU was a top 25 team. In the six games played, none of the three teams were ever ranked when we played them, and people still complain about our schedule, not even realizing they were marquee names when scheduled.

Name teams like Oklahoma and Texas always draw. The other teams only draw when they are hot. So I can see where he is coming from.

(04-02-2013 11:13 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 01:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  2. You may be right, but the Big XII seems to be hot right now, and for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that WVU was a contender during the first half of the season, so it would have worked last year. IMO, the Big XII is good for two sure things: Texas and OU, and one wild card that varies depending on the year.

3. I doubt any Big XII teams would play 2 ACC teams. I think that ACC teams would play Big XII teams 2/3 years and Big XII teams would play ACC teams every year.

4. "On a more important note..." Frankly you make good points, and your logic isn't without merit. However, I think that the Big XII's biggest advantage is that it is very popular in Texas, and Texas is the "hot" state when it comes to recruiting. Florida was big in the 80's and 90's, Calif was big in the 00's and Texas is now. There's very little that the ACC could do that would improve Texas recruiting more than consistently beating Big XII teams would. I honestly think that Miami will come back soon, and FSU will stop under achieving. That would give the ACC two powers in FLorida and a chance to impress Texas recruits, strengthenign the ACC brand in 2/3 most important recruiting states.

5. "B1G in basketball and SEC in football..." I don't think that Fox will let us get the B1G in basketball. The C7 and the B1G will square off, and I think that ESPN will make us play the SEC. It makes more geographic sense for all parties that way and it makes more sense for ESPN's programming. However, I do agree about playing the SEC in football, especially if we are going to get stuck playing them in basketball. The ACC has 4 OOC games comapred to the SEC's 3, the Big XII's 3, the Pac-12's 3, and the B1G's 2. That means that we have up to 2 to burn. We could have a 2nd scheduling agreement with the SEC too. Playing an 8 game ACC schedule, a Big XII/ND game (Big XII 2/3 years, and ND 1/3 years), a SEC game, and 2 other OOC games is not a bad schedule at all. It gives the conference exposure in Texas, and the rest of the deep south (Louisianna, Alabama, and Mississippi), which, when combined with current ACC territory and Texas, would give the conference exposure in 3/4 of the nation's best recruiting areas. I think that it would also help our TV contract, because it would guarentee that every ACC team would play at least 10 quality games every year (keep in mind that we are currently negotiating with ESPN).

2) I don't like the matchups with the Big 12. I'd much rather play a regional or marquee team.

3) So you get Oklahoma and Texas at home once every 30 years? I hope they play in Blacksburg sooner rather than later.

4) On the other hand, not playing the Big 12 because we have something to lose is cowardly. It reminds me of 1993-1995, when UVA was going to stop playing VT.

5) That sucks. I really want that ACC/B1G challenge but everything I've heard says it's going away. The SEC still has 4 OOC games. They didn't want to give up their regular 7 home games a year. How does the B1G only have 2 OOC game? Are they playing 10 conference games a year?

3. Well, it would be TX or OU at home once every 15 years, and the Big XII is good for one-two other hot teams any given year, so you are playing an elite team at home once every 7.5 years and building the ACC brand in Texas. If we had a 10 game B1G schedule (yes, they are switching to a 10 game schedule) then I could see your point, but frankly the ACC has 1-2 more OOC games than any other major conference, so we have games to burn. It really won't matter that much. VTech plays Alabama, Marshall, East Carolina, and Western Carolina. Only 1/4 of those teams is a BCS team. There is a LOT of fluff and VT alreeady has conference games against UNC and Duke, which means that you will play 4 NC teams in a year. NC is already pretty squarely in the ACC's camp and I doubt any NC recruits are going to turn VTech down for lack of exposure in the state. I think that adding another BCS team would improve the Hokie strength of schedule and consistently playing a TX-area team* would help the conference as a whole.

*This applies to every school. I'm just using VTech as an example because you are a VTech fan. I'm not trying to pick on the Hokies.

5. Yes, they are switching to 10 games/yr and dropping FCS games to improve TV value. Btw, I would rather see a B1G/ACC basketball challenge, but I doubt that it will happen. ESPN would rather promote SEC teams than B1G teams. Hopefully this will mean that the SEC will have to play us in football and maybe ESPN will throw some oney our way (keep in mind that we are still in negotiations). It will be interesting to see how the B1G handles ESPN's imminent all-out negative PR blitz moving forward.