We sent a number of teams to the tourney (Duke, UNC, NCSU, Miami, SU, UL, Pitt, and ND off the top of my head), we sent 3 teams to the Elite Eight, we sent 2 teams to the Final Four (and it might have been 3, but 2 ACC/Future ACC teams played in the Elite Eight), we won the Orange Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Chick-fil-a Bowl, and we won a number of other bowls (off the top of my head, we also won the Pinstripe Bowl, the Sun Bowl, and the Belk Bowl).

We also increased our payout from $13 million to $17 million to a projected $19 million (cross fingers), we added UL (albiet at the expense of UMD), and we added ND, who played in the CFB NCG, as a partial with a football scheduling agreement.

Things aren't perfect and we still have a long way to go. We are still a little behind in TV money and the OB payout could have been better. However, I feel like we have made significant progress. If ACC basketball can live up to expectations, and Miami football can come back, if one of GT and VT can come back, if one of SU, Pitt, and BC can come back, and if UL can (dramatically) improve its academic, then we can have one heck of a conference.

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)

(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.

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

The new teams will elevate the league back to top in hoops. It will be monster. Hopefully in football it can move up a notch or two over the next 5 years. Future is bright.

(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.

Virginia Tech Future Non-Conference Opponents
2013
08/31 - Alabama (at Atlanta, GA)
09/07 - Western Carolina
09/14 - at East Carolina
09/21 - Marshall
2014
08/30 - William & Mary
09/13 - East Carolina
09/20 - at Ohio State
09/27 - Western Michigan
2015
09/05 - Furman
09/12 - at East Carolina
09/19 - Ohio State
2016
09/03 - Liberty
09/10 - Wisconsin
09/17 - East Carolina
09/24 - Old Dominion
2017
09/09 - at Wisconsin
09/16 - at East Carolina

I'd MUCH rather see 2 BCS powerhouse opponents each year.
If VT continues to schedule ECU every year, that's fine... but then drop one of the 2 cupcakes - at least in years when ECU comes to Blacksburg.

(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.

I dont recall SU being forced to play these games on a nuetral field. The way I remember it, USC was perfectly willing to do a home and home at the Dome. Same for PSU and ND. In fact, both teams have actually played in the Dome in recent years. SU AD, Darryl Gross jumped at the opportunity to schedule these big name opponents in the NYC area so that he would stay in line in being New Yorks college team. Also, the guaranteed payout to SU is ridiculously high and is much more than what SU would clear hosting those games at the Dome, not to mention the media exposure in playing the games at the Meadowlands.

(03-31-2013 03:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  I dont recall SU being forced to play these games on a nuetral field. The way I remember it, USC was perfectly willing to do a home and home at the Dome. Same for PSU and ND. In fact, both teams have actually played in the Dome in recent years. SU AD, Darryl Gross jumped at the opportunity to schedule these big name opponents in the NYC area so that he would stay in line in being New Yorks college team. Also, the guaranteed payout to SU is ridiculously high and is much more than what SU would clear hosting those games at the Dome, not to mention the media exposure in playing the games at the Meadowlands.

The USC was originally scheduled years ago as a home and home, but Gross moved the SU home game from the Dome to the Meadowlands. I don't know if this was all Gross' idea, of if USC threatened to pull out of the series due to "perceived" attendance problems in Syracuse.

PSU last played us in a home and home which took place during the GRob error. I don't know who's idea it was to make the new deal a 3 game series (home, road, Meadowlands).

Notre Dame was never coming back to Syracuse. They originally approached Rutgers with a 4 game deal: 2 in South Bend and 2 in the Meadowlands, but Rutgers refused to give up the home games. ND next contacted UConn with a similar arrangement: 2 in South Bend and 2 Meadowlands (or 1 Meadowlands and 1 Foxboro). UConn also refused.

Syracuse was the 3rd phone call, and Gross accepted. Playing 2 in South Bend and 2 in Syracuse was NEVER on the table.

Now that ND will have to give every other ACC team a home game at some point, maybe we can amend our current deal and get the Irish in Syracuse once.

(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.

(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.

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.

1. FSU's AD was complaining about it about a month ago (if that). There's a story on the FSU football section of ESPN. Attendance is also a problem, and he was claiming that was partially due to a weak ACC and partially due to an inability to get elite teams to come to FSU. Actually, I can't find the article, but I am next to certain that it was on ESPN.com. I'll look for it later, but until then, you are going to have to take my word that it exists.

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).

(03-31-2013 04:02 PM)OrangeXtreme Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 03:18 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  I dont recall SU being forced to play these games on a nuetral field. The way I remember it, USC was perfectly willing to do a home and home at the Dome. Same for PSU and ND. In fact, both teams have actually played in the Dome in recent years. SU AD, Darryl Gross jumped at the opportunity to schedule these big name opponents in the NYC area so that he would stay in line in being New Yorks college team. Also, the guaranteed payout to SU is ridiculously high and is much more than what SU would clear hosting those games at the Dome, not to mention the media exposure in playing the games at the Meadowlands.

The USC was originally scheduled years ago as a home and home, but Gross moved the SU home game from the Dome to the Meadowlands. I don't know if this was all Gross' idea, of if USC threatened to pull out of the series due to "perceived" attendance problems in Syracuse.

PSU last played us in a home and home which took place during the GRob error. I don't know who's idea it was to make the new deal a 3 game series (home, road, Meadowlands).

Notre Dame was never coming back to Syracuse. They originally approached Rutgers with a 4 game deal: 2 in South Bend and 2 in the Meadowlands, but Rutgers refused to give up the home games. ND next contacted UConn with a similar arrangement: 2 in South Bend and 2 Meadowlands (or 1 Meadowlands and 1 Foxboro). UConn also refused.

Syracuse was the 3rd phone call, and Gross accepted. Playing 2 in South Bend and 2 in Syracuse was NEVER on the table.

Now that ND will have to give every other ACC team a home game at some point, maybe we can amend our current deal and get the Irish in Syracuse once.

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.

(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.

(03-31-2013 06:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. FSU's AD was complaining about it about a month ago (if that). There's a story on the FSU football section of ESPN. Attendance is also a problem, and he was claiming that was partially due to a weak ACC and partially due to an inability to get elite teams to come to FSU. Actually, I can't find the article, but I am next to certain that it was on ESPN.com. I'll look for it later, but until then, you are going to have to take my word that it exists.

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).

1) That's fine if FSU is having problems, then every one could be having problems. I just haven't seen it as being a Hokie problem. But then VT has been willing to rearrange our schedule on short notice to sign marquee opponents at neutral sights. No one else seems willing to do that on a regular basis.

2) For a team to be top 5 in the first 4 weeks of the season (when the ACC would play them), they'd have to at least be top 10 going into the season. I don't expect the Big 12 to be able to do that other than Oklahoma and Texas on a regular basis. So I'm not saying that a top 5 team wouldn't be exciting. I'm saying I don't expect the Big 12 to be able to produce any of those teams outside the top 2 but maybe 2-3 times tops in the next 15 years.

3) The ACC has 15 teams and the Big 12 has 10. I don't see the Big 12 being willing to sign up 1/2 there league to 2 ACC OOC games a year when they only have 3 OOC games. Which would be necessary to make this work balanced. I don't see how an agreement can be made and I'd expect Texas to want to count there games against ND as part of the agreement. There goes half the interesting teams right there.

On a more important note, why pair off against the league that would like most to familiarize themselves with our teams so that if we do poorly, they might be able to take some of our teams? We couldn't do the Big 12 a bigger favor if we tried. We need to be pairing off against the B1G and SEC. If the SEC would agree to it, that would be the way to go. Sure we probably won't win a lot but we're not expected to, so there's no perception loss there. Plus we could make up worlds of perceived difference by just having a good year. Individual schools would have lots of matchups that would bring lots of fans and garner a lot of regional and national interest.

Pair up with the B1G in a basketball challenge long term and the SEC in football. There are already 5 games yearly that can count and that still leaves Miami, VT, UNC, Pittsburgh and Syracuse to pair off against the other 9 schools (Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas.... lots of attractive opponents). ND doesn't have to play since they don't like playing SEC schools and each conference has 14 teams. That's what I would want but it probably won't happen. Hopefully the Big 12 alliance gets dumped. That agreement is just they type of poor planning and positioning that have gotten the ACC into revenue trouble in the first place.

(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.

(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.

I know. That's why we're talking about elite teams (i.e. USC*, ND, PSU). My point about the gaps created by WVU and TCU is that we replaced the holes with a FCS team and a one-time away game with a team that failed to make a bowl**. That doesn't exactly scream options. I know there was only short notice in both cases, but still. If we are having trouble scheduling middle of the road BCS teams, I can't see how that wouldn't translated into having trouble schedulign elite BCS teams.

*I think USC was a mistake. They lack a HUGE NYC fan base, like PSU and ND, and they aren't a traditional rival, so Syracuse fans in the city were less than enthused to see what was percieved at the time to be a glorified body bag game.
**To be fair, I think they were ranked when we made the deal.

I think you'll see lots of Notre Dame, Penn State and (Gag Me)...Rutgers...hopefully tOSU and Michigan too.

(03-31-2013 07:08 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  1) That's fine if FSU is having problems, then every one could be having problems. I just haven't seen it as being a Hokie problem. But then VT has been willing to rearrange our schedule on short notice to sign marquee opponents at neutral sights. No one else seems willing to do that on a regular basis.

2) For a team to be top 5 in the first 4 weeks of the season (when the ACC would play them), they'd have to at least be top 10 going into the season. I don't expect the Big 12 to be able to do that other than Oklahoma and Texas on a regular basis. So I'm not saying that a top 5 team wouldn't be exciting. I'm saying I don't expect the Big 12 to be able to produce any of those teams outside the top 2 but maybe 2-3 times tops in the next 15 years.

3) The ACC has 15 teams and the Big 12 has 10. I don't see the Big 12 being willing to sign up 1/2 there league to 2 ACC OOC games a year when they only have 3 OOC games. Which would be necessary to make this work balanced. I don't see how an agreement can be made and I'd expect Texas to want to count there games against ND as part of the agreement. There goes half the interesting teams right there.

On a more important note, why pair off against the league that would like most to familiarize themselves with our teams so that if we do poorly, they might be able to take some of our teams? We couldn't do the Big 12 a bigger favor if we tried. We need to be pairing off against the B1G and SEC. If the SEC would agree to it, that would be the way to go. Sure we probably won't win a lot but we're not expected to, so there's no perception loss there. Plus we could make up worlds of perceived difference by just having a good year. Individual schools would have lots of matchups that would bring lots of fans and garner a lot of regional and national interest.

Pair up with the B1G in a basketball challenge long term and the SEC in football. There are already 5 games yearly that can count and that still leaves Miami, VT, UNC, Pittsburgh and Syracuse to pair off against the other 9 schools (Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas.... lots of attractive opponents). ND doesn't have to play since they don't like playing SEC schools and each conference has 14 teams. That's what I would want but it probably won't happen. Hopefully the Big 12 alliance gets dumped. That agreement is just they type of poor planning and positioning that have gotten the ACC into revenue trouble in the first place.

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).

(04-01-2013 12:51 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think you'll see lots of Notre Dame, Penn State and (Gag Me)...Rutgers...hopefully tOSU and Michigan too.

I really, really do not want to play RU in the Meadowlands...ever....under any circumstances.

I would love to see top tier B1G team (PSU, tOSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin) + ND v. SU, especially if ND would be willing to play us a game or two in addition to once every 3 years (I doubt that they would, but a man can dream). I also wouldn't mind seeing Texas in the Meadowlands, but I'm not sure how interested they are in NYC.

Playing Army/RU/UCONN in Yankee Stadium when we aren't in the Meadowlands would be cool.....

(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.

That was HUGE.