omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: Expansion through the years from a Virginia Tech perspective (Metro/BE/ACC)
(10-08-2013 11:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote: (10-08-2013 10:59 AM)omniorange Wrote: (10-08-2013 10:06 AM)Lou_C Wrote: Wow, that is spectacular. What a fantastic read, thanks for that. I can't believe in all the reading I've done about expansion, I never came across that. I'd read a lot of the sources, but never that piece.
And right on with this:
"The one thing about the whole ACC expansion process that makes me shiver like I’m walking past a graveyard is how ignorant the ACC presidents appeared to be of Virginia Tech, dismissing the Hokies early in the process without knowing much about VT’s athletic finances, academic support, and fan support. With the exception of John Casteen, the ACC presidents were quick to dismiss the Hokies in favor of BC and Syracuse early in the process, without doing their homework. Why? Because Shalala gave those terms to the ACC athletic directors and John Swofford, and they passed them on to the presidents. It’s a good thing for Virginia Tech that Casteen forced the ACC presidents into taking a closer look at VT."
The ACC has made a lot of dumb moves over the years, which I could easily list. But the biggest mistake of all was one that they were saved from despite themselves.
I keep telling myself that this is a new ACC that finally "gets it." I think the moves of the last couple years strongly support that view. But I shudder to think if that hadn't broken the way it did and they didn't add VT.
To this day, many still do not understand what was truly happening back in 2003. It wasn't that the ACC wasn't aware of VT's football prowess, it was assumed that they were always going to be there for the taking if needed.
And of course, BC and SU were not going to give the ACC what they claimed either, the conference of the entire East Coast. Which is why it made no sense to the everyday sports fan when Swofford used that to justify the expansion.
Just as in 2010, the BiG's real targets were ND, Texas, and either A&M or Nebraska, the ACC's endgame was Miami, ND, and quite possibly PSU (remember the BTN wasn't a factor back then), but definitely they wanted BOTH Miami and ND.
But unlike the egotistical Delany who truly believed he could get three of their four targets above thanks to the BTN (but had to settle for only Nebraska), Swofford knew the ACC had no chance of getting all three of Miami, ND, and PSU right then and there. The ACC needed to do it in increments. Miami had already said they wanted both BC and SU. The thinking was ND would want Pitt and BC while PSU would want any two of BC, SU, and Pitt.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the 2003 expansion and that was ND was showing interest immediately, at least in terms of a partial football membership. And swelled heads like Fox at NC State, Wetherell at FSU, and the Virginia president whose name escapes me for the moment thought they had both Miami (they couldn't go back to the Big East after the stink the jilted BE football schools put up) and ND (believing the Irish had no place to go with the BE falling apart) so they overruled Swofford and told him to secure Miami (which required VT, something the presidents at FSU, GT, and Clemson knew and were probably "in" on it with UVa) and then aggressively pursue ND.
The result was ND couldn't bring themselves to be even a partial with an exclusively southern conference away from their core strength - the Northeast. And even though VT provided way more in terms of football than either SU or BC would have, the truth is the TV money was basically a wash and ACC football still took a dive mostly due to Miami and FSU both taking steps backward.
So no need to "shudder". Swofford knows the prize and has managed to go about trying to secure it in the only way it can be secured (if it can ever be secured), in increments.
Cheers,
Neil
Even if that is 100% true, and I don't agree that it is (we had a pretty good source on that while it was going on) it was still almost a massive mistake.
One, it turns out that it was Syracuse that was available all along, and I think we can safely say BC would have been as well.
Sure both SU and BC would have been available as well. But what NOT taking SU turned out to be was keeping the Big East and a safe haven option for ND alive. It also could have led to ND, SU, Pitt, and MD joining the BiG in 2010 along with Nebraska. Again, Delaney's ego of wanting RU before either SU or Pitt cost him any shot he had at ND and longshot wise could have potentially also cost the league PSU.
Quote:However, does anyone thing VT would have remained outside the clutches of the SEC all these years? Maybe that's the way it looked in 2004 to Swofford, but it was absurdly wrong.
It was all over by 2004. The decisions were made in 2002 and acted upon in 2003. And yes, VT would have been an attractive eastern option for the SEC when A&M became available in 2011.
But, would the ACC have cared if they had already pulled off Miami and ND (not to mention the unthinkable, getting PSU as well)? That was the thinking. Not saying it was right or wrong for the conference overall. Just stating where the vision was heading.
Quote:And it's not like hindsight is 20/20, many of us at the time felt that what the ACC desparately needed was football success and high profile matchups, and not some 30 year plan to maybe, sorta, if things go right, some day have some kind of sweet relationship with Notre Dame.
And football fans of these institutions should think like that. But none of that changes the fact that having VT did not make the ACC a viable football conference and it certainly didn't it make it a stable one. They simply were not either with both FSU and Miami down. They struggled to look better than the Big East during that time frame.
What has the ACC looking good again in football now is the fact that the 4 best football programs in the league are all doing well this year so far.
But what made the ACC a stable, viable conference again that wasn't in danger of being pulled apart were the additions of SU and Pitt which led to getting ND as a partial member. And that all happened before the ACC doing well in football came about.
That's the reality of it. Plain and simple.
None of what I have said is meant to be a knock on VT and it certainly isn't meant to make SU look like a better pick one on one in comparison with the Hokies. It's said to bring the big picture view to the table that sometimes the one-o-one comparisons just can't.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|