Reminiscing about ACC Expansion

[hokie4redskins]

Interesting take from NCST fan. Comments are a fun read too.

http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/23/reminiscing-about-acc-expansion/


Reminiscing About ACC Expansion

Memories can be a funny thing. I suspect that the trivial items that stick in our brains are somehow related to our individual personality. Some people tend to think (and remember) the best….and others the worst. Some people are so self-absorbed that they only remember things that directly impact them. Some people have near photographic memory with the ability to recall amazing and trivial details. I’m an engineer, not a psychiatrist or doctor….but I find this subject interesting.

I have always loved sports, but over the years I have developed an extreme distaste for most sports reporters. On this particular incident, I can remember the exact moment when my distaste for “sports journalists” began…the spring of 1983. I read idiotic report after useless commentary seemingly without end about the NCAAT that year. It quickly became obvious that intelligence, originality, and insight was not required for a career in sports journalism. (When you throw in the idiot Doyel, you can see that sports journalism hasn’t improved much over the intervening years.)

Lest you develop concerns for my mental well-being over those two disjointed paragraphs, let me tie them together. Bob Holiday at WRAL and I have completely different memories on ACC expansion plans and projections, If we give Bob the benefit of the doubt concerning possible Doyel tendencies, let’s see what you remember about ACC expansion plans and projections.

Bob’s Memories:

When proponents of ACC expansion first pressed their case in 2003, there seemed to be a tacit assumption that the new 12 team league, bolstered by the addition of Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College, would each year stage a championship game featuring at least one and possibly two legitimate contenders for the national title.

My Memories:

Strange, but I remember the original ACC expansion plan as Miami, BC, and Syracuse. In other words, one football school, one basketball school, and one that was sort of good/decent at both. So it seems to me that Swofford’s original plan called for a more balanced expansion than what we ended up with. But since Johnny didn’t get Dean Smith and Coach K on-board first, we ended up with VT instead of Syracuse.

I also seem to remember reading that the loser of a conference championship game almost never got invited to a BCS bowl. So the claim that ACC expansion had anything at all to do with generating two title contenders is somewhere between silly and bizarre.

How could anyone possibly guarantee a “legitimate contender” for the BCS championship game? Common sense would say that the best way to produce a championship contender would be one strong team playing in a weak conference (ie FSU and the 8 dwarfs or USC in the Pac-10).

The addition of a championship game gives your potential championship contender another tough game. Was the ACC championship game about producing national championships or about money from the next TV contract?

Bob’s Thoughts

Four years later, however, some still feel ACC expansion has not measured up…Expansion has brought in new revenue, but has also increased the pay out from nine schools to 12. At this point, each school takes in about $10. 9 million, same as in the nine team ACC.

My Thoughts

Who is this “some” that Bob refers to? Can someone point me to the commentaries, blogs, and message boards that are bemoaning how horrible ACC expansion has been?

Bob needs to do a little digging over where the money comes from that he is referring to. The one $11M figure he refers to combines TV money from both FB and BB, Bowl games, and NCAAT games. Throwing out the one composite figure with no breakdown proves absolutely nothing…especially if your commentary is focusing solely on football.

As I said earlier I am an engineer, not a business major. However, I have deduced that most business classes can be summarized in the following three laws:

* Make more money this year than you did last year.
* Whenever you can not make more money, make at least as much as you did last year.
* Never, never, ever make less money this year than you did last year.

I remember that the financial projections from ACC expansion had both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, the addition of a FB championship game and the possibility of a second BCS bowl were added into the projections. On the negative side, the next TV contract for football was expected to be smaller than the existing one. In other words, ACC expansion was targeted at reaching Business Law #1 or #2, while absolutely insuring that Law #3 was met.

Bob’s Thoughts

The ACC’s new expansion-rich TV contract doubled football revenues and added markedly to the league’s national exposure on ESPN and ABC.

My Thoughts

Huh? How did the last two quoted paragraphs end up in the same commentary?

Bob’s Thoughts

But the arguments for expansion in 2003 suggested there would be more. The 12 team ACC was supposed to significantly increase the chance for the league to put two teams in the Bowl Championship Series (and bring in several million more dollars).

My Thoughts

“Significantly increase the chance” and “guarantee” are two completely different concepts. It looks to me like Bob is a little confused about the difference.

Bob’s Thoughts

Personally, I enjoy showing highlights on football Saturdays for a 12 team league, and there is no question the ACC generates more news since expansion. But for the “great football upgrade” to live up to its promise, the ACC must outperform the Big East and the Big Ten and challenge the SEC in most years. It must put more teams into the rankings and occasionally send two teams to the BCS. And win some national championships.

My Thoughts:

Finally, something we can agree on. If the ACC wants to be thought of as an elite football conference, then you have to win….bowl games, high-profile OOC games, and national championships.

But until then, the conference’s athletic department budgets are being buoyed quite nicely from the new TV contract for its football games. After all, that’s what expansion was really all about….wasn’t it?


If you weren’t around here during SFN’s dissection of Doyel after the Herbster bailed out of Raleigh, scroll back up and hit the links with his name. I think you will find both of those entries worth the time they take to read.

[mjah]

Lots of thoughts about this... but the one that really pops out is this idea that the ACC was somehow going to become a perennial top-two football conference by adding three teams to a dominant basketball conference.

The expansion had to happen. I have no doubt about that. But no rational person would have expected to leapfrog the SEC just by adding Miami, BC and VT. No offense to those schools, but you don't just assemble a new master conference by shuffling schools' conference affiliations. It takes time, and you build it up.

So press releases aside, I have a hard time believing in the credibility of anyone who claims the expectation was instant football greatness. Improvement? Yes, definitely. Dethroning the SEC? Not quite.

The expansion was about two things: money and survival. Both depend on football. We got the survival and the money part down, and now it's time to start building a conference full of stronger football teams.

[PleaseBlitz]

The expansion had to happen. I have no doubt about that. But no rational person would have expected to leapfrog the SEC just by adding Miami, BC and VT. No offense to those schools, but you don't just assemble a new master conference by shuffling schools' conference affiliations. It takes time, and you build it up.

So press releases aside, I have a hard time believing in the credibility of anyone who claims the expectation was instant football greatness. Improvement? Yes, definitely. Dethroning the SEC? Not quite.





I MIGHT, and I stress "MIGHT" give the SEC a slight edge over the ACC but not by much and mainly due to the southern football tradition which rocks.

The SEC, ACC, Big 10 all had 3-3 records in Bowl games last year. One of the ACC's losses was at the hands of newcomer Boston College. I'm not impressed with Big 10's boring style of football but that's just my opinion. Personally, I think Auburn and VT (SEC and ACC Champs) would've run the table in the Big 10 last year. All three conferences, however, are heated slugfests year in year out, so who's to really say.

That being said,
ACC hands down.

:cool:

Who is the best conference in the nation? (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1569325&postcount=4) 8/28/2005

[mjah]

I see what you were trying to do there, but I think he was making observations about that year and maybe the previous one. Not heralding the arrival of a new king in town for the foreseeable future. I mean, he even made a point of giving a macho-nod to the SEC.

But maybe my interpretation is off. Let the man speak for himself below...

[Major Harris]

Let the man speak for himself below...
now that's funny.

[hokie4redskins]

Who is the best conference in the nation? (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1569325&postcount=4) 8/28/2005

:wtf:

As usual, mjah nails it.

I don't know what's more pathetic, WVU losing to South Florida, at home, Rutgers' rise to prominence, your reading comprehension, or the fact that you dug into the archives from two years ago to find a post about the football season THREE years ago. Come on, man, READ. Aren't you always the one playing that card?

If you actually READ that post, you'd have seen that I indeed gave SEC the edge. And after 2004, my post was anything but outlandish. Both conferences went 3-3 and the respective conference champs slugged it out 16-13 in the Sugar Bowl. My "hands down" comment was an attempt at humor, which apparently was beyond your intellectual capacity. I should've known better and dumbed it down a tad. My apologies.

Now, I suppose I could dig into the ES archives to find your more absurd claims, i.e. 17 > 34, claiming to be better than the team that whooped you, at home, kind of like South Florida did (did I mention that?) etc., but then someone might confuse me for an 'eer.

:puke:

Though given the awesome awesomeness of the Big East, I suppose I shouldn't talk. You do, after all, have Rutgers giving your conference legitimacy.

:rolleyes:

Somehow I still suspect you'd sell your soul for an ACC invite.

:deal:

But yes, I do think one day soon, the ACC will be the best conference in the land. After 2004, I thought it was already on its way doing that. Yes, 2006 was a step back for the conference, but an aberration nonetheless. You know, kind of like the Big East's success last year.

[EersSkins05]

But yes, I do think one day soon, the ACC will be the best conference in the land. After 2004, I thought it was already on its way doing that. Yes, 2006 was a step back for the conference, but an aberration nonetheless. You know, kind of like the Big East's success last year.

All that other tripe aside, this statement is one of the dumbest I've seen. Exactly what are you basing this statement on?


BCS Bowl wins and appearances by conference

ACC BCS Bowl Record- 1 win, 8 losses (0.111 winning percentage)

BCS BOWL RESULTS
Florida State Lost 1999 Fiesta Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiesta_Bowl)*
Florida State Won 2000 Sugar Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Bowl)*
Florida State Lost 2001 Orange Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Bowl_%28game%29)*
Maryland Lost 2002 Orange Bowl
Florida State Lost 2003 Sugar Bowl
Florida State Lost 2004 Orange Bowl
Virginia Tech Lost 2005 Sugar Bowl
Florida State Lost 2006 Orange Bowl
Wake Forest Lost 2007 Orange Bowl

The Big East has already won more BCS bowls (2) since Miami, VT, and BC left the conference then the ACC has in its ENTIRE HISTORY.

You chalk up last year's AWFUL ACC showing by calling it an aberration, but what was it in 2006, when the ACC sent a previously unranked Florida State team as their BCS representative?

Right now, an honest assessment of the ACC wouldn't put that conference any higher than 5th on the totem pole of conference superiority, but you act as if their corronation is right around the corner.

Since you enjoy smileys so much, maybe this is one you'll understand:

:koolaid:

[The Evil Genius]

:laugh: Some hate from CBS Sports.

:silly:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/10267107/2



Expansion has done nothing to boost ACC play at this point


Dennis Dodd July 24, 2007
By Dennis Dodd
CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer


PINEHURST, N.C. -- There are better ways to enter the marketplace.

How do the ad slicksters put it -- product rollout, brand launch?

There are even more inventive ways to tap dance around the issue at ACC media days. The hell with the corporate buzzwords. ACC football has disappointed. As a brand, it is branded, arriving underdeveloped in 2004 and going into 2007 overhyped.

The ACC league presidents are still on the hook for delivering a beta version too soon, with too many glitches. Three years ago, that quickie expansion forced an awkward, gi-normous 11-team league to kick off without Boston College. Two years ago, league champion Florida State lost five games.

Last season, the league went Van de Velde, limping home with Miami and Florida State both at 7-6.

"Outside of the conference (the perception is) yes, one of us, or Virginia Tech, need to be their showcase team," Miami offensive lineman Derrick Morse said.

The fact that the ACC is still launching football is the biggest clue to its underachievement. Check your preseason magazines for confirmation. The conference is rated somewhere below the SEC, Pac-10, Big Ten, Big East and Big 12 heading into this season.

Pretty much where it was before Florida State, Miami and Virginia Tech came onboard.

Check the outside world. It has not been kind to the ACC. BCS league teams are 16-6 against the ACC. The SEC is particularly harsh, having gone 7-1 against the reconstituted ACC. The league is 1-8 in BCS bowls, the only victory being Florida State's 2000 Sugar Bowl win.

Against the top 10, the ACC is a staggering 3-31 since 2000.

There is a segment of the population that would give up a kidney in return for ACC Tournament tickets. A similar segment wouldn't give you a can of kidney beans for tickets to last season's football championship game between Wake Forest and Georgia Tech.

There is not a bigger difference in perception between the two money-making sports in any major conference.

"When a Wake Forest can win a league with Florida State, Miami and Virginia Tech in the league that's something to be respected ... " commissioner John Swofford said. "If that fits Madison Avenue, fine. If it doesn't, that's fine too."

No, it's not. The hoop-centric ACC expanded for football. It expanded for football because the financial rewards reaped by Big 12 and SEC -- two other 12-team leagues.
Advertisement


While the money has been good, the football hasn't been great. Which means the brand is diminished. Madison Ave. and the rights holder want to see Miami and Florida State in the ACC championship game. Each year, if possible. They're also tired of waiting. A Florida State-Miami Labor Day night season opener the past three seasons has been scrapped in favor of Florida State-Clemson this year.

The last ACC team to win a national championship was Florida State in 1999. No ACC champion has finished undefeated in the league since that year. Also since then, the Big 12 and SEC have each won national championships.

With a chance to showcase its league here, ACC coaches brought a grand total of one quarterback (Boston College's Matt Ryan) to the media days.

Only Virginia Tech is a consensus Top 25 pick. As good as the favored Hokies are, they might be knocked out of the national title chase in Week 2 at LSU.

Mike Krzyzewski once said the league had sold out for football. Certainly not at your school, Mike.

"Last year was bad for us, we won only seven games and I almost feel embarrassed," Morse told the Fort Worth Star Telegram. "If I didn't care about winning, I'd go to Duke."

You want to talk branding? For a few horrific minutes, Miami was still Miami. Let's not forget its brawl with Florida International that disgraced the school and the league.

As good a story as Wake Forest was, the ACC didn't expand so that its league championship game wouldn't sell out and the Gator Bowl Association would reportedly lose $300,000 on the game at Jacksonville's Alltel Stadium.

It didn't form so that a slump by glam programs Miami and Florida State would coincide with/be caused by a new level of "competitiveness," in the league.

"How can you put pressure on me?" said 77-year-old Bobby Bowden. "I could walk out tomorrow and have a darn good time (but) I don't want to ... Miami will be back and we will too."

That's part of the problem: The assumption that Miami and Florida State will be back anytime soon.

It's not so much Bowden's age but his method for rebuilding that's the problem. Five new coaches aren't going to mean diddly if the new assistants don't find better players. It used to be a Seminole quarterback wouldn't start until his junior season. In recent years, flameouts and freak outs have forced Bowden having to start inexperienced quarterbacks too soon.

Randy Shannon wasn't the first choice at Miami, but might be the best choice in the long run. He is a disciplinarian whose rules would make both Larry Coker and Bowden blush.

What we don't know is if the career assistant can coach a lick.

"Miami football is still Miami football," Shannon said. "Will the numbers come back next season? It depends."

Madison Ave. isn't the only one watching.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Good old Dennis Dodd column

And if it was summer 2003 and VT had to do it all over again, VT would take the exact same course of action

Expansion has been very very good for our athletic program

Of course TEG, I was expecting your Big East to have 2 BCS teams last year. You only spent all season spouting that party line :silly:

[PleaseBlitz]

:wtf:

As usual, mjah nails it.

I don't know what's more pathetic, WVU losing to South Florida, at home, Rutgers' rise to prominence, your reading comprehension, or the fact that you dug into the archives from two years ago to find a post about the football season THREE years ago. Come on, man, READ. Aren't you always the one playing that card?

If you actually READ that post, you'd have seen that I indeed gave SEC the edge. And after 2004, my post was anything but outlandish. Both conferences went 3-3 and the respective conference champs slugged it out 16-13 in the Sugar Bowl. My "hands down" comment was an attempt at humor, which apparently was beyond your intellectual capacity. I should've known better and dumbed it down a tad. My apologies.

Now, I suppose I could dig into the ES archives to find your more absurd claims, i.e. 17 > 34, claiming to be better than the team that whooped you, at home, kind of like South Florida did (did I mention that?) etc., but then someone might confuse me for an 'eer.

:puke:

Though given the awesome awesomeness of the Big East, I suppose I shouldn't talk. You do, after all, have Rutgers giving your conference legitimacy.

:rolleyes:

Somehow I still suspect you'd sell your soul for an ACC invite.

:deal:

But yes, I do think one day soon, the ACC will be the best conference in the land. After 2004, I thought it was already on its way doing that. Yes, 2006 was a step back for the conference, but an aberration nonetheless. You know, kind of like the Big East's success last year.

:laugh:

http://www.galaxyfaraway.com/Sounds/ALL2EASY.WAV

[PleaseBlitz]

Good old Dennis Dodd column

And if it was summer 2003 and VT had to do it all over again, VT would take the exact same course of action

Expansion has been very very good for our athletic program

Of course TEG, I was expecting your Big East to have 2 BCS teams last year. You only spent all season spouting that party line :silly:

Oh no, the Big East didnt have TWO BCS teams! You're right, they only had one, who won. The ACC also only had one, who lost......again.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Oh no, the Big East didnt have TWO BCS teams! You're right, they only had one, who won. The ACC also only had one, who lost......again.

Sigh, my life is over

Kill me now

Of course, the ACC has yet to lose a BCS game by 28 points to a mid major

Hence a lot of the posts that were made in August of 2005, at which point you weren't a regular here (for good reason)

[SkinsHokieFan]

And to be perfectly honest, I am not really that worried about the Big East vis a vis Virginia Tech

Since expansion we are undefeated against the Big East (4-0 2 wins over WVU, 1 win over Louisville, 1 win over Cincy)

[PleaseBlitz]

Of course, the ACC has yet to lose a BCS game by 28 points to a mid major

Hence a lot of the posts that were made in August of 2005, at which point you weren't a regular here (for good reason)

Of course, the ACC has yet to WIN a BCS game since they became the big 12 team powerhouse that they claim to be. Clowning Pitt isnt going to raise any hackles here. :laugh:

And to be perfectly honest, I am not really that worried about the Big East vis a vis Virginia Tech



Yeah, thats what i'd be saying too now that the BE had THREE teams ranked higher than VT (or any ACC school for that matter). I guess a lot has changed since the ACC was SUPPOSSED to be good and the Big East was SUPPOSSED to crumble. Back then you were :blahblah:

[EersSkins05]

Of course, the ACC has yet to lose a BCS game by 28 points to a mid major.

Nah, they just lose all of them, no matter who they play. :D

[SkinsHokieFan]

Nah, they just lose all of them, no matter who they play. :D


Just not to mid majors by 4 TD's :)

[EersSkins05]

PS- I can say that I, for one, enjoy the fact that we are close enough to football season for these conversations to be enjoyable. :cheers:

[SkinsHokieFan]

PS- I can say that I, for one, enjoy the fact that we are close enough to football season for these conversations to be enjoyable. :cheers:


Can't disagree with that. Practice starts next week :notworthy

[hokie4redskins]

And to be perfectly honest, I am not really that worried about the Big East vis a vis Virginia Tech

Since expansion we are undefeated against the Big East (4-0 2 wins over WVU, 1 win over Louisville, 1 win over Cincy)

By a combined, what, 50 points? At least?

My, my, this thread sparked a heated exchange, didn't it? Eer fans still angry we left them to rot while we've moved on to greener pastures?

Regardless, any conference touting the rise of Rutgers has lost all credibility. And anyone who claims, even today, that they'd reject an ACC invite is smoking crack. Criticize the ACC all you want. You'd join in a heartbeat.

[EersSkins05]

Just not to mid majors by 4 TD's :)

You're right. Pitt sucks.

Good thing the Big East made up for it by beating the SEC and... ahem... ACC champion in the next two years. :D

[SkinsHokieFan]

By a combined, what, 50 points? At least?

My, my, this thread sparked a heated exchange, didn't it? Eer fans still angry we left them to rot while we've moved on to greener pastures?

Regardless, any conference touting the rise of Rutgers has lost all credibility. And anyone who claims, even today, that they'd reject an ACC invite is smoking crack.


Its one of the more fun ones I have thought :laugh:

Clearly in August of 2005, nobody thought much of the Big East. And why should anyone have?

Their "champion" (of a 4 way tie) got blasted by a mid major 35-7. They just lost another team and added a few midmajors to their ranks (Cincy, USF, Louisville) and still had bottom feeders like Rutgers and Cuse was sinking faster then New Orleans was that month

WVU's win over GA was HUGE, and the Big East had a good year last year. However to have predicted this in August of 2005, which no Eer fan clearly did, would have been foolish

[EersSkins05]

By a combined, what, 50 points? At least?

My, my, this thread sparked a heated exchange, didn't it? Eer fans still angry we left them to rot while we've moved on to greener pastures?

Regardless, any conference touting the rise of Rutgers has lost all credibility. And anyone who claims, even today, that they'd reject an ACC invite is smoking crack. Criticize the ACC all you want. You'd join in a heartbeat.

Why?

When you're ranked in the top 5 preseason, have sold out every seat in the stadium for the entire season before individual game tickets would even go on sale, have two preseason Heisman candidates (who will get to show their stuff right outside of NYC), have future home-and-home series set up with Auburn, Florida State, and Michigan State, and have the most preseason hype in the history of the school...

WHY WOULD WE WANT ANYTHING TO CHANGE???? lol

EDIT- The only thing I would change is resuming the series with VT. It's dumb that they don't play every year. That game was a cash cow for everyone involved in both cities.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I see the people viewing this thread

I sense a battle is about to ensue....

:evil:

[SkinsHokieFan]

You're right. Pitt sucks.

Good thing the Big East made up for it by beating the SEC and... ahem... ACC champion in the next two years. :D


You are right, Wake sucks too :cheers:

We'll just have to make up for it this season. Its too bad we blew the game against undefeated Auburn in 04, and FSU's kicker couldn't make a kick to save his life against PSU in 05

Regardless, having your champion of a 4 way tie lose by 28 to a mid major didn't exactly help the BE be on anyone's radar going into the 2005 season

And you guys knew it then too

[hokie4redskins]

http://img24.photobucket.com/albums/v71/joe6pak/braveheart.jpg

[PleaseBlitz]

By a combined, what, 50 points? At least?

My, my, this thread sparked a heated exchange, didn't it? Eer fans still angry we left them to rot while we've moved on to greener pastures?

Regardless, any conference touting the rise of Rutgers has lost all credibility. And anyone who claims, even today, that they'd reject an ACC invite is smoking crack. Criticize the ACC all you want. You'd join in a heartbeat.

Hhahaa, nope.

Wouldnt join the faltering ACC, we have absolutely no reason to. And anyone that is poo-pooing Rutgers and yet still thinks their conference is one of the better conferences.....DESPITE NOT HAVING A SINGLE TEAM RANKED HIGHER THAN RUTGERS......is smoking crack.

Face it, reminiscing about ACC expansion is going to make any outsider laugh their asses off. I certainly am. When the expansion was going down, every ACC fan was screaming at the top of their lungs that they would quickly be the best conference in the land, or at least on par with the SEC. They VT/Miami/BC crowd were also crowing about how the Big East would essentially collapse. They were screaming for the BE to lose its BCS auto-bid.

The reality is the ACC is the worst of the 6 major conferences, by far, by any measure. VT/Miami/BC havent done anything of note.....in fact, the most noteworthy things that have happened to those 3 schools are the Miami brawl and Marcus Vick stomping on Elvis Dumervil.

[The Evil Genius]

For a team that was 11-10 in BE play the last 3 years in conference, I would say that the escape to the ACC was necessary.

:laugh:

:silly:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Hhahaa, nope.

Wouldnt join the faltering ACC, we have absolutely no reason to. And anyone that is poo-pooing Rutgers and yet still thinks their conference is one of the better conferences.....DESPITE NOT HAVING A SINGLE TEAM RANKED HIGHER THAN RUTGERS......is smoking crack.

Face it, reminiscing about ACC expansion is going to make any outsider laugh their asses off. I certainly am. When the expansion was going down, every ACC fan was screaming at the top of their lungs that they would quickly be the best conference in the land, or at least on par with the SEC. They VT/Miami/BC crowd were also crowing about how the Big East would essentially collapse. They were screaming for the BE to lose its BCS auto-bid.

The reality is the ACC is the worst of the 6 major conferences, by far, by any measure. VT/Miami/BC havent done anything of note.....in fact, the most noteworthy things that have happened to those 3 schools are the Miami brawl and Marcus Vick stomping on Elvis Dumervil.

:laugh: :notworthy (for being completely delusional)

The ACC expansion was the best thing to happen to the VT athletic department. I'll take that ACC title, 3 straight 10 win seasons, recruiting classes better then ever, and another loaded team over staying in the Big East any day. Oh and the fact that every single other sport in our AD has improved drastically, thanks in part to being in the ACC footprint

Hey the Big East did far better then I thought it would, kudos to you guys, but I am more then happy to be exactly where we are. And in August of 2005, nobody saw this coming, including you guys because none of you had a damn thing to say until December of 2005

[SkinsHokieFan]

For a team that was 11-10 in BE play the last 3 years in conference, I would say that the escape to the ACC was necessary.

:laugh:

:silly:

:laugh:

So I guess Miami should have stayed having gone 20-1 in its last 3 years in the BE? :whoknows:

That argument is absolutley silly

[EersSkins05]

http://img24.photobucket.com/albums/v71/joe6pak/braveheart.jpg

http://elitecriativa.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/he-man.jpg

[hokie4redskins]

And in August of 2005, nobody saw this coming, including you guys because none of you had a damn thing to say until December of 2005

They were pretty quiet in October of '05 too for some reason. Strange.

:laugh:

[EersSkins05]

:laugh: :notworthy (for being completely delusional)

The ACC expansion was the best thing to happen to the VT athletic department. I'll take that ACC title, 3 straight 10 win seasons, recruiting classes better then ever, and another loaded team over staying in the Big East any day. Oh and the fact that every single other sport in our AD has improved drastically, thanks in part to being in the ACC footprint

Hey the Big East did far better then I thought it would, kudos to you guys, but I am more then happy to be exactly where we are. And in August of 2005, nobody saw this coming, including you guys because none of you had a damn thing to say until December of 2005

I think it worked out for everyone involved. Like I said in a previous edit, the only really bad thing to come out of it was that VT and WVU don't play annually anymore, which is dumb on a major scale.

But PB was responding to the claim that WVU would jump at the chance to join the ACC, and that's just flat-out wrong. From the standpoints of exposure, natural rivalries, and standing in the league, WVU couldn't be happier.

[EersSkins05]

They were pretty quiet in October of '05 too for some reason. Strange.

:laugh:

As were you in 2003 when your dream season collapsed (and I got maced.) lol

[The Evil Genius]

Hey the Big East did far better then I thought it would, kudos to you guys, but I am more then happy to be exactly where we are. And in August of 2005, nobody saw this coming, including you guys because none of you had a damn thing to say until December of 2005

I dunno, according to this post - dated August 29, 2005 -
http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1571503&postcount=8


I had WVU going 8-3 or 9-2 in 2005. (In reality they were 10-1 in regular season). Some of us were saying that the BE was ok, despite the defection of BC, Miami, and VPI.

:)

But then, I know reading comprehension isn't a forte of alums of Tech schools. :silly:

[hokie4redskins]

I dunno, according to this post - dated August 29, 2005 -
http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1571503&postcount=8


I had WVU going 8-3 or 9-2 in 2005. (In reality they were 10-1 in regular season). Some of us were saying that the BE was ok, despite the defection of BC, Miami, and VPI.

:)

But then, I know reading comprehension isn't a forte of alums of Tech schools. :silly:

Wow, 10-1? That's pretty good. Who did you lose to again? I forgot.

[The Evil Genius]

Wow, 10-1? That's pretty good. Who did you lose to again? I forgot.

So you do agree that you and SHF were wrong? People here were talking about WVU being good in 2005...before December or 2005?

[PleaseBlitz]

:laugh: :notworthy (for being completely delusional)

The ACC expansion was the best thing to happen to the VT athletic department. I'll take that ACC title, 3 straight 10 win seasons, recruiting classes better then ever, and another loaded team over staying in the Big East any day. Oh and the fact that every single other sport in our AD has improved drastically, thanks in part to being in the ACC footprint

Hey the Big East did far better then I thought it would, kudos to you guys, but I am more then happy to be exactly where we are. And in August of 2005, nobody saw this coming, including you guys because none of you had a damn thing to say until December of 2005

I didnt say anything about any of that, and i certainly did not say going to the ACC was bad for VT....did I? All i said regarding VT specifically was that you havent done anything of note. Meaning, you havent won or even gone to a BCS game or knocked off a top ranked team. VT has done very well individually all things considered, but the ACC looks bad right now with what they've been doing as a whole on the field after such lofty expectations. No you not agree?

Im glad that everyone is happy where they are.

[canethang 305]

I'm in the minority, I didn't like the move when it was made and I would still rather have Miami, Tech and BC in the Big East. Don't get me wrong it was a great move for Tech's other sports and the Athletic dept. pocketbook but for Miami I would rather have the conference schedule of the Big East that we had and be able to have FSU as an out of conference opponent. Aside from the large BCS split and the Championship game we gained about nothing. Being in the ACC will not help us get better in Basketball, we're not a basketball school and never will be or being in the Big East would have made it better and our Baseball team has a few national titles to boast about so we didn't need help there.

I felt a strong sense of loyalty to the Big East because when the NCAA put the pinch on the independants FSU went to the ACC, Penn State went ot the Big Ten and the SEC wasn't an option. If the Big East wouldn't have accepted a "football school" we may not have been able to fill out a full schedule.

[hokie4redskins]

So you do agree that you and SHF were wrong? People here were talking about WVU being good in 2005...before December or 2005?

The Almighty says don't change the subject; just answer the ****ing question.

http://www.cinema24horas.com/filmes/coracao_valente/coracao_valente01.jpg

[hokie4redskins]

As were you in 2003 when your dream season collapsed (and I got maced.) lol

2003? How far back do you want to go? How about 1999? 2003 was hardly a dream season. VT was a team full of holes that year. This was our dream season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPz4GxA5gf4

Man, that's gotta hurt to hear Tech Triumph being played on your home field.

:laugh:

[The Evil Genius]

The Almighty says don't change the subject; just answer the ****ing question.


Why answer the question that everyone knows - including you?

Is it suppose to be a dig that WVU lost to VPI that year? Really? Was it so horrible that a team led by freshmen (who hadn't proven much up to that game) lost to another team? Really?

And what does that say about VPI's loss to a 4 loss (regular season) FSU team? Especially a FSU that was coming off of 3 straight losses before it beat VPI in the ACC "title" game? Does that make VPI a worse team than FSU that year? Or Miami? Was VPI really the 3rd best team in the ACC that year?

Besides - I wasn't changing the subject. I was pointing out that both you and SHF were incorrect, people were saying good things about WVU football - prior to December 2005. It's just that certain people here conveniently forget it.

:)

[SkinsHokieFan]

I didnt say anything about any of that, and i certainly did not say going to the ACC was bad for VT....did I? All i said regarding VT specifically was that you havent done anything of note. Meaning, you havent won or even gone to a BCS game or knocked off a top ranked team. VT has done very well individually all things considered, but the ACC looks bad right now with what they've been doing as a whole on the field after such lofty expectations. No you not agree?

Im glad that everyone is happy where they are.


January 2005, I know I was at the Sugar Bowl game against Auburn

And if an ACC title isn't noteworthy anymore, I honestly don't know what is

[hokie4redskins]

I'm in the minority, I didn't like the move when it was made and I would still rather have Miami, Tech and BC in the Big East. Don't get me wrong it was a great move for Tech's other sports and the Athletic dept. pocketbook but for Miami I would rather have the conference schedule of the Big East that we had and be able to have FSU as an out of conference opponent. Aside from the large BCS split and the Championship game we gained about nothing. Being in the ACC will not help us get better in Basketball, we're not a basketball school and never will be or being in the Big East would have made it better and our Baseball team has a few national titles to boast about so we didn't need help there.

I felt a strong sense of loyalty to the Big East because when the NCAA put the pinch on the independants FSU went to the ACC, Penn State went ot the Big Ten and the SEC wasn't an option. If the Big East wouldn't have accepted a "football school" we may not have been able to fill out a full schedule.

Are you serious? Is this how most canes feel or are you a minority? And if you're a majority, what the hell was that ***** Shalala thinking?

I think you're out of your mind though if you think the ACC is a detriment to Miami's long-term benefit. But considering you haven't won squadoosh since joining, I guess I can see where you're coming from.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Why answer the question that everyone knows - including you?

Is it suppose to be a dig that WVU lost to VPI that year? Really? Was it so horrible that a team led by freshmen (who hadn't proven much up to that game) lost to another team? Really?

And what does that say about VPI's loss to a 4 loss (regular season) FSU team? Especially a FSU that was coming off of 3 straight losses before it beat VPI in the ACC "title" game? Does that make VPI a worse team than FSU that year? Or Miami? Was VPI really the 3rd best team in the ACC that year?

Besides - I wasn't changing the subject. I was pointing out that both you and SHF were incorrect, people were saying good things about WVU football - prior to December 2005. It's just that certain people here conveniently forget it.

:)


Alright TEG you in your homer glasses were saying good things about WVU prior to the 2005 kickoff :laugh: At that point nobody was saying a good thing about the BE, because the 2004 season was an embarrasment for the BE

Of course last year you picked an undefeated season as well as 2 BE teams in the BCS

[The Evil Genius]

Alright TEG you in your homer glasses were saying good things about WVU prior to the 2005 kickoff :laugh:

Of course last year you picked an undefeated season as well as 2 BE teams in the BCS

Correct, and I will predict the same thing this year. BTW - despite not being picked, at least 2 teams were worthy of the BCS last year from the BE (and I am sure they were given a lot of consideration before the bids were handed out).

[SkinsHokieFan]

Correct, and I will predict the same thing this year. BTW - despite not being picked, at least 2 teams were worthy of the BCS last year from the BE (and I am sure they were given a lot of consideration before the bids were handed out).


And 2 ACC teams were also "worthy"

VT met all the requirements for an at large bid and rumors were swirling about the Sugar Bowl

Doesn't mean anything at all

[SkinsHokieFan]

Are you serious? Is this how most canes feel or are you a minority? And if you're a majority, what the hell was that ***** Shalala thinking?

I think you're out of your mind though if you think the ACC is a detriment to Miami's long-term benefit. But considering you haven't won squadoosh since joining, I guess I can see where you're coming from.


I really think its their lack of success since the move. Miami was the force behind ACC expansion

20-1 in the last 3 years of the Big East, 14-10 in the ACC

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/22/lostbattle_wideweb__470x298,0.jpg

[The Evil Genius]

And 2 ACC teams were also "worthy"

VT met all the requirements for an at large bid and rumors were swirling about the Sugar Bowl

Doesn't mean anything at all

Did they change the rules? I thought only the top 14 of the final BCS rankings were eligible?

VPI was 15 in the final BCS poll.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

edit - they didn't, from the same link

The pool will consist of any Division I-A team that is ranked among the top 14 in the final BCS standings and has achieved at least nine wins during the regular season (excluding NCAA-exempted contests).

[PleaseBlitz]

Alright TEG you in your homer glasses were saying good things about WVU prior to the 2005 kickoff :laugh: At that point nobody was saying a good thing about the BE, because the 2004 season was an embarrasment for the BE

Of course last year you picked an undefeated season as well as 2 BE teams in the BCS


Of course, in a thread about reminiscing about expansion, its funny how things didnt work out the way everyone expected.

Isnt that the point of the thread?

[PleaseBlitz]

And 2 ACC teams were also "worthy"

VT met all the requirements for an at large bid and rumors were swirling about the Sugar Bowl

Doesn't mean anything at all

No they were not BCS bowl eligible. And yet, rumors were still swirling around HokieSports.........:laugh:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Did they change the rules? I thought only the top 14 of the final BCS rankings were eligible?

VPI was 15 in the final BCS poll.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

edit - they didn't, from the same link

No they were not BCS bowl eligible. And yet, rumors were still swirling around HokieSports.........:laugh:

Here is the thread where all 3 of us talked about it in December

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182598&page=1&highlight=Virginia+Tech

Which in the context of our discussion makes sense. At the time I threw out the hypothetical we were eligible at the end we were not

Still doesn't mean much since the Big East only sent one team :silly: (just like in 2000, which I am still bitter about)

[PleaseBlitz]

Here is the thread where all 3 of us talked about it in December

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182598&page=1&highlight=Virginia+Tech

Which in the context of our discussion makes sense. At the time I threw out the hypothetical we were eligible at the end we were not

Still doesn't mean much since the Big East only sent one team :silly: (just like in 2000, which I am still bitter about)


Its funny that you now hold the Big East to a much higher standard than you do the ACC.

the ACC looks bad right now with what they've been doing as a whole on the field after such lofty expectations. No you not agree?



:whoknows:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Its funny that you now hold the Big East to a much higher standard than you do the ACC.



:whoknows:

I disagree. The ACC had one bad season since expansion

So did the Big East

:whoknows:

[PleaseBlitz]

I disagree. The ACC had one bad season since expansion

So did the Big East

:whoknows:

It seems to be that you are implying that the Big East failed for "only sending 1 team to the BCS" while defending the ACC, which only sent one team to the BCS, and lost.....to the Big East school.

And 2005 wasnt exactly a rousing success for the ACC sending a team to the BCS that was UNRANKED prior to the ACC Cship game.

Either way, do you not think that in the context of reminiscing about expansion, things havent gone as ACC fans thought they would?

[SkinsHokieFan]

It seems to be that you are implying that the Big East failed for "only sending 1 team to the BCS" while defending the ACC, which only sent one team to the BCS, and lost.....to the Big East school.

And 2005 wasnt exactly a rousing success for the ACC sending a team to the BCS that was UNRANKED prior to the ACC Cship game.

Either way, do you not think that in the context of reminiscing about expansion, things havent gone as ACC fans thought they would?

No actually I was talking about the 2004 Big East disaster

When you look at its worked out similar for both conferences

The ACC had a very good start in 2004. Slipped because we had a brain fart in the ACC title game in 2005 and was bad in 2006

One good year, one eh year, one bad year

The Big East was awful in 2004, with 4 teams winning the title and getting blasted by a mid major in the Fiesta Bowl 35-7

2005 was eh until the win over GA, and 2006 was very good

[PleaseBlitz]

No actually I was talking about the 2004 Big East disaster

When you look at its worked out similar for both conferences

The ACC had a very good start in 2004. Slipped because we had a brain fart in the ACC title game in 2005 and was bad in 2006

One good year, one eh year, one bad year

The Big East was awful in 2004, with 4 teams winning the title and getting blasted by a mid major in the Fiesta Bowl 35-7

2005 was eh until the win over GA, and 2006 was very good

I can agree with that. Im just glad that BE is the conference with the recent seasons being the good ones and showing improvement every year, rather than the opposite. We have 2 schools that have been in a BCS conference for less than 3 years that may be in the top 25 this year. Those programs can only get better.

[EersSkins05]

No actually I was talking about the 2004 Big East disaster

When you look at its worked out similar for both conferences

The ACC had a very good start in 2004. Slipped because we had a brain fart in the ACC title game in 2005 and was bad in 2006

One good year, one eh year, one bad year

The Big East was awful in 2004, with 4 teams winning the title and getting blasted by a mid major in the Fiesta Bowl 35-7

2005 was eh until the win over GA, and 2006 was very good

So one is going up, and one is going down. Gotcha. lol

[The Evil Genius]

Why don't you just say, 12-0 Utah instead of mid-major? You know, the team that had Alex Smith at QB. I hear they were pretty good that year. Ask Texas A&M (who went to the Cotton Bowl that year), or UNC (who also went bowling even if it was the Tire Bowl) - they both got smoked by Utah that year.

:)

[canethang 305]

I really think its their lack of success since the move. Miami was the force behind ACC expansion

20-1 in the last 3 years of the Big East, 14-10 in the ACC

It isn't lack of success, the same thing would have happened if the expansion never happened, Coker would have f-ed everything up. I realize we were the one's who initiated and brokered the move and it was all based on the almighty dollar. I only know a few 'Canes fan's and they didn't like the move BEFORE it happened. I base most of my opinion on scheduling, we traded a perenial top tier out of conference opponent for one of far lesser value when you beat them. A win over FSU carried more merit than anyone we've been able to schedule since we came into the ACC until OU came on the schedule this year and Florida next year and the in conference schedule was of the same merit in the Big East as it is in the ACC.

Miami could have an undefeated record in the ACC and I still would feel the same way.

[SkinsHokieFan]

So one is going up, and one is going down. Gotcha. lol


Well again if you want to be real fair, the ACC had 3 top 10 teams for a good chunk of the 2005 year

FSU collapsed down the stretch and the Bowden curse reared its ugly head over Beamer on December 3rd, 2005

We beat FSU, its a dandy year for the ACC. But thats the risk when you have a title game, sort of like K-State beating Oklahoma a few years back

[PleaseBlitz]

It isn't lack of success, the same thing would have happened if the expansion never happened, Coker would have f-ed everything up. I realize we were the one's who initiated and brokered the move and it was all based on the almighty dollar. I only know a few 'Canes fan's and they didn't like the move BEFORE it happened. I base most of my opinion on scheduling, we traded a perenial top tier out of conference opponent for one of far lesser value when you beat them. A win over FSU carried more merit than anyone we've been able to schedule since we came into the ACC until OU came on the schedule this year and Florida next year and the in conference schedule was of the same merit in the Big East as it is in the ACC.

Miami could have an undefeated record in the ACC and I still would feel the same way.

A win over Lville last year would have gone a long way.

[PleaseBlitz]

Well again if you want to be real fair, the ACC had 3 top 10 teams for a good chunk of the 2005 year

FSU collapsed down the stretch and the Bowden curse reared its ugly head over Beamer on December 3rd, 2005

We beat FSU, its a dandy year for the ACC. But thats the risk when you have a title game, sort of like K-State beating Oklahoma a few years back

And the 2006 year?

[SkinsHokieFan]

And the 2006 year?

Re-read all my posts in this thread, I am the first one to say it was a bad year for the ACC