(02-01-2012 04:22 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I agree that the ACC has to step up their game, in football. Going to another conference isn't going to solve the issue, though. Even the SEC has bad teams. Life wouldn't be anymore different in the XII. You'd still be in a conference with a "mafia", one that is far worse, Texas drove out 4 members all in less than 2 years. UNC drove out SCar, which hasn't turned out to be a big loss, when is the last time they've done anything?

In the ACC you can actually drive to the games of the "bad teams". You can enjoy watching Clemson beat up on Duke in person. You can't do that with Kansas.

Considering that the only two teams we play on a regular basis that we care about (FSU and GT) would be pretty much assured going with us I fail to see the negative.

Quote:Leaving the ACC would also hurt Clemson's recruiting. Clemson has gotten 6 kids this year, out of NC and VA. I doubt they get that many in the XII.

No it wouldn't. Florida, Tenn and UGA have done a great job of getting talent out of NC for years without playing in NC. Clemson can do the same. Besides, Duke used to sell us their home conference games.....you think we will have a problem buying a home game with a school in the triangle?

(02-01-2012 04:22 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I agree that the ACC has to step up their game, in football. Going to another conference isn't going to solve the issue, though. Even the SEC has bad teams. Life wouldn't be anymore different in the XII. You'd still be in a conference with a "mafia", one that is far worse, Texas drove out 4 members all in less than 2 years. UNC drove out SCar, which hasn't turned out to be a big loss, when is the last time they've done anything?

In the ACC you can actually drive to the games of the "bad teams". You can enjoy watching Clemson beat up on Duke in person. You can't do that with Kansas.

Leaving the ACC would also hurt Clemson's recruiting. Clemson has gotten 6 kids this year, out of NC and VA. I doubt they get that many in the XII.

* Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

* Driving distance is an issue (WVU may regret joining B12).

* easier to recruit against UNC than Texas!

I want VT to play Texas & Oklahoma, too... in a BCS bowl, at the end of the season!

(02-01-2012 04:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

We have known this devil since the 1920's. it ain't getting any better that we can see. Get rid of Tarheel Johnny Swofford and get a progressive ACC leadership and maybe we can talk....but we have had just about as much of Chapel Hill's craps as we can stand.

Quote:* Driving distance is an issue (WVU may regret joining B12).

Again, if we leave we ain't leaving alone. The schools we care about will go with us.

Quote:* easier to recruit against UNC than Texas!

We don't have to play UNC to beat them recruiting in NC. When we have concentrated on NC we have got most of the players we want regardless of how good the Heels have been. Florida and Georgia just cleaned out the top players in NC this year......when was the last time they played?

Quote:I want VT to play Texas & Oklahoma, too... in a BCS bowl, at the end of the season!

I want to play the best possible home schedule every year without having to worry about deadweights like UNC, Duke, UVA, and Marylnd.

(02-01-2012 04:35 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  Considering that the only two teams we play on a regular basis that we care about (FSU and GT) would be pretty much assured going with us I fail to see the negative.

I highly doubt GT would leave the ACC, for a weak academic conference. Like the XII...

They left the SEC for a reason. I'm also not sure Miami would leave, either. Their current administration is very pro academics.

(02-01-2012 04:59 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

We have known this devil since the 1920's. it ain't getting any better that we can see. Get rid of Tarheel Johnny Swofford and get a progressive ACC leadership and maybe we can talk...

^^^ THIS! ^^^

This is what the Clemson Advisory Committee NEEDS to be discussing!

(02-01-2012 05:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:59 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

We have known this devil since the 1920's. it ain't getting any better that we can see. Get rid of Tarheel Johnny Swofford and get a progressive ACC leadership and maybe we can talk...

^^^ THIS! ^^^

This is what the Clemson Advisory Committee NEEDS to be discussing!

It could be a lot worse...

(02-01-2012 05:14 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 05:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:59 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

We have known this devil since the 1920's. it ain't getting any better that we can see. Get rid of Tarheel Johnny Swofford and get a progressive ACC leadership and maybe we can talk...

^^^ THIS! ^^^

This is what the Clemson Advisory Committee NEEDS to be discussing!

It could be a lot worse...

True.


Still shouldn't make us strive to be better. Gimme somebody with Larry Scott's testicular fortitude any day.

(02-01-2012 05:14 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  It could be a lot worse...

When you're right, you're REALLY right!

NOTE: Two of the big 6 conference commisioners graduated from UNC -- Big Ten and ACC. Pac12 has a Harvard guy, and SEC has a Dartmouth guy. I'm not sure about Neinas (interim anyway)

NOTE 2: Two conferences hired alumni as commisioners -- Big East and ACC. Nothing against Swofford personally, but that's a bad idea... and poor company!

(02-01-2012 05:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:59 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

We have known this devil since the 1920's. it ain't getting any better that we can see. Get rid of Tarheel Johnny Swofford and get a progressive ACC leadership and maybe we can talk...

^^^ THIS! ^^^

This is what the Clemson Advisory Committee NEEDS to be discussing!

I kind of get the Clemson paranoia about Swofford going back 30 years ago when he advocated longer probation for the Tigers, but what does a Hokie fan have against the guy?

(02-01-2012 05:49 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  I kind of get the Clemson paranoia about Swofford going back 30 years ago when he advocated longer probation for the Tigers, but what does a Hokie fan have against the guy?

First time Swofford negotiates a TV deal on behalf of VT he sells ALL rights to ESPN for 12 years! Why would anyone want him to negotiate our next contract?

(02-01-2012 05:49 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 05:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:59 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  * Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

We have known this devil since the 1920's. it ain't getting any better that we can see. Get rid of Tarheel Johnny Swofford and get a progressive ACC leadership and maybe we can talk...

^^^ THIS! ^^^

This is what the Clemson Advisory Committee NEEDS to be discussing!

I kind of get the Clemson paranoia about Swofford going back 30 years ago when he advocated longer probation for the Tigers, but what does a Hokie fan have against the guy?

Catdaddy likes to cry. Claims Clemson is suffering because of bad ACC officials. I think those official put them in the ACC title game with the screw job WF got against Clemson.

(02-01-2012 06:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 05:49 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  I kind of get the Clemson paranoia about Swofford going back 30 years ago when he advocated longer probation for the Tigers, but what does a Hokie fan have against the guy?

First time Swofford negotiates a TV deal on behalf of VT he sells ALL rights to ESPN for 12 years! Why would anyone want him to negotiate our next contract?

That's the problem of going first in the last round of negitations. At the time the deal significnantly surpassed what the commentators predicted the ACC would get. We'll see what we get this time.

I agree that an effort to create an ACC version of the Big Ten network would have been preferable but the conference has actually hard numbers in front of them when making these decisions compared to our best guesses on the Internet.

(02-01-2012 07:19 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 06:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 05:49 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  I kind of get the Clemson paranoia about Swofford going back 30 years ago when he advocated longer probation for the Tigers, but what does a Hokie fan have against the guy?

First time Swofford negotiates a TV deal on behalf of VT he sells ALL rights to ESPN for 12 years! Why would anyone want him to negotiate our next contract?

That's the problem of going first in the last round of negitations. At the time the deal significnantly surpassed what the commentators predicted the ACC would get. We'll see what we get this time.

I agree that an effort to create an ACC version of the Big Ten network would have been preferable but the conference has actually hard numbers in front of them when making these decisions compared to our best guesses on the Internet.

I think the goal is to create an ACC network with ESPN as partner. THe BTN is 49% owned by Fox. The ACC, in my opinion, is looking to start that type of deal with ESPN and they hope that adding Pitt and Syr will add a large number of subscribers to the network. Just will take a little patience.

(02-01-2012 05:49 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  I kind of get the Clemson paranoia about Swofford going back 30 years ago when he advocated longer probation for the Tigers, but what does a Hokie fan have against the guy?

I was just reminded of something else... besides giving away too much in the TV deal by signing a long-term contract while in a weak position (bad business!), Swofford also botched the ACC CG to the point that the conference lost its long-time affiliation with the Gator Bowl. That hurt.

There are only 2 major conferences with school alumni in charge - the ACC and the Big East. That says a lot right there. Conflict of interest (even perceived) kills. I'd like to see a Harvard guy (like Larry Scott) in the commissioner's chair.

(02-02-2012 06:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 05:49 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  I kind of get the Clemson paranoia about Swofford going back 30 years ago when he advocated longer probation for the Tigers, but what does a Hokie fan have against the guy?

I was just reminded of something else... besides giving away too much in the TV deal by signing a long-term contract while in a weak position (bad business!), Swofford also botched the ACC CG to the point that the conference lost its long-time affiliation with the Gator Bowl. That hurt.

There are only 2 major conferences with school alumni in charge - the ACC and the Big East. That says a lot right there. Conflict of interest (even perceived) kills. I'd like to see a Harvard guy (like Larry Scott) in the commissioner's chair.

That could be a route that may need to be taken. However, I still think getting fully into bed with ESPN why help to ensure long term survivability of the ACC.

(02-02-2012 08:50 AM)samandrea Wrote:  ...I still think getting fully into bed with ESPN why help to ensure long term survivability of the ACC.

I do see some wisdom in that (I just object to losing your leverage for 12 years). ESPN can make or break a conference. If exclusive rights puts ESPN on the side of the ACC, that's not a bad thing. I'd still like a secondary rights deal like the SEC has (only with NBC instead of CBS).

(02-02-2012 09:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 08:50 AM)samandrea Wrote:  ...I still think getting fully into bed with ESPN why help to ensure long term survivability of the ACC.

I do see some wisdom in that (I just object to losing your leverage for 12 years). ESPN can make or break a conference. If exclusive rights puts ESPN on the side of the ACC, that's not a bad thing. I'd still like a secondary rights deal like the SEC has (only with NBC instead of CBS).

Yeah, but I think the endgame is still an ACC network partnered with ESPN. The drawback is that the network portion will be ABC since they are part of Disney as well. The CBS deal with SEC is actually for tier 1 rights and ESPN has tier 2.

As previously mentioned, it's all about how much the schools/how many schools are willing to commit to their athletic programs. Every conference is going to have dead weight, however, the conferences that are regarded most highly have several programs who make a serious commitment to athletics. Provided the ACC schools will, or will continue to do so the conference will be fine.

The argument is constantly battled on Pitt message boards: are we a football or basketball school? Usually those saying football are colored as living in the past. I don't think that's the case, though, because despite an off campus stadium Pitt has made a commitment to football. In hiring Todd Graham they made a commitment to pay $2 million for a coach which was a big deal at the time because they bargain basement shopped for Wannstedt. Although it didn't work out, it was a showing of commitment to the program and I think they made a solid hire and showed commitment in hiring Chryst because he's not exactly a bargain basement type of guy either. The training facilities are also top notch.

I just use Pitt as an example because I know of their situation. These are the types of things that can help make the conference strong, though. There are a number of schools in the conference who I think are willing to make that commitment even if Duke isn't.

(02-02-2012 10:52 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  As previously mentioned, it's all about how much the schools/how many schools are willing to commit to their athletic programs. Every conference is going to have dead weight, however, the conferences that are regarded most highly have several programs who make a serious commitment to athletics. Provided the ACC schools will, or will continue to do so the conference will be fine.

The argument is constantly battled on Pitt message boards: are we a football or basketball school? Usually those saying football are colored as living in the past. I don't think that's the case, though, because despite an off campus stadium Pitt has made a commitment to football. In hiring Todd Graham they made a commitment to pay $2 million for a coach which was a big deal at the time because they bargain basement shopped for Wannstedt. Although it didn't work out, it was a showing of commitment to the program and I think they made a solid hire and showed commitment in hiring Chryst because he's not exactly a bargain basement type of guy either. The training facilities are also top notch.

I just use Pitt as an example because I know of their situation. These are the types of things that can help make the conference strong, though. There are a number of schools in the conference who I think are willing to make that commitment even if Duke isn't.

I agree. Pitt is trying to do both FB and BB. However, I think Pitt is clearly showing that FB takes precedent due to Pitt's historical roots. Honestly, I think this thread is more of a "UNC vs Clemson fan" pissing match than a discussion on the long term prospects of ACC football.

(02-02-2012 01:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-02-2012 10:52 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  As previously mentioned, it's all about how much the schools/how many schools are willing to commit to their athletic programs. Every conference is going to have dead weight, however, the conferences that are regarded most highly have several programs who make a serious commitment to athletics. Provided the ACC schools will, or will continue to do so the conference will be fine.

The argument is constantly battled on Pitt message boards: are we a football or basketball school? Usually those saying football are colored as living in the past. I don't think that's the case, though, because despite an off campus stadium Pitt has made a commitment to football. In hiring Todd Graham they made a commitment to pay $2 million for a coach which was a big deal at the time because they bargain basement shopped for Wannstedt. Although it didn't work out, it was a showing of commitment to the program and I think they made a solid hire and showed commitment in hiring Chryst because he's not exactly a bargain basement type of guy either. The training facilities are also top notch.

I just use Pitt as an example because I know of their situation. These are the types of things that can help make the conference strong, though. There are a number of schools in the conference who I think are willing to make that commitment even if Duke isn't.

I agree. Pitt is trying to do both FB and BB. However, I think Pitt is clearly showing that FB takes precedent due to Pitt's historical roots. Honestly, I think this thread is more of a "UNC vs Clemson fan" pissing match than a discussion on the long term prospects of ACC football.

You are right and I am done pissing! Football needs to improve no doubt, but as bad as it is, still got 2 BCS bids. Why was that? Everything will be fine.