Um, television, radio, and now college sports!!!! wooo! thanks Maryland, you're really setting a good example for your students. The ACC should be really super in a few years. I'll be glad to be gone by then.
Let's see what has been destroyed by greed in recent ti
Well if they ruin college sports, colleges may go back to being places were people go to learn stuff.
Did i miss something? what happened in college sports?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:acc wanted to expand, and they wanted miami who's in the big east. miami wanted to take boston college and syracuse with them. virgina wanted to bring in virigina tech instead, for obvious reasons. And Va Tech and some other Big East teams sued the ACC. Then Va Tech got invited to the expansion.
Did i miss something? what happened in college sports?
So it went from an expansion of 1 to 3 to 4, and now it's down to just Miami and Virigina Tech. Which make the expansion esentially worthelss becuase the ACC would need 12 teams to have a Conference Championship game in football, which is apperently a big money event. Bascially, the ACC looks bad, Miami looks greedy, and Virgina Tech just come off looking like the biggest bunch of sore loser little kids ever.
It's highly probably that the Big East will continue the cycle by cannibalizing another league.
All kidding aside, can you explain to me why it's a big deal to go from the Big East to the ACC or whatever it is they're trying to do….they still play the sport and all try to get into the same bowl games or whatever they call them?…don't they?
Maybe it's due to scouts. I don't know, I don't really follow sports.
OK, thats what i thought you meant, but not sure why Maryland is involved, i thought they were being quiet about the whole thing. Basically, from a sports standpoint, if SYU, Miami and Va Tech were in the ACC, then so much for teams like Clemson and Virginia and NC State EVER winning a football title, ever again. Also, in basketball, as if its not bad enough that the 2 aforementioned teams have to play Duke and Wake Forest and Maryland, now they have to play Miami and the national champs!? I am sure Duke doesnt want to play Syracuse twice a year either.
I dont see Va Tech looking bad in this thing, but the ACC does, and so does Virginia, definitely. Sometimes I think they should make college sports like the pros, East and West and sort it out from there, instead of 20 conferences i cant keep track of.
So did they scrap the whole thing yet?
I dont see Va Tech looking bad in this thing, but the ACC does, and so does Virginia, definitely. Sometimes I think they should make college sports like the pros, East and West and sort it out from there, instead of 20 conferences i cant keep track of.
So did they scrap the whole thing yet?
Originally posted by mankie:Sorry Mankie but I think it will have the opposite effect.
Well if they ruin college sports, colleges may go back to being places were people go to learn stuff.
Don't understand it myself as I hate most sports, especially college sports.
Wouldn't they just improve the team to try to win the title if they were in a better league? I thought it was all politics anyway for these bowl games seeing as it's by invitation that they play in them.
Anyway, I don't care enough about it to make a big deal but was just trying to understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.
Anyway, I don't care enough about it to make a big deal but was just trying to understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.
Originally posted by mankie:Basically, it comes down to this. If you are a high school football player, and two schools want you, Virginia and Virginia Tech…well, you arent getting paid, but VT is a much more highly revered school as far as football goes, the NFL likes that, and more scouts and TV and fans and publicity goes to VT (some of that will come to other ACC teams if VT plays them though).
Wouldn't they just improve the team to try to win the title if they were in a better league? I thought it was all politics anyway for these bowl games seeing as it's by invitation that they play in them.
Anyway, I don't care enough about it to make a big deal but was just trying to understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.
Plus, VT has a better chance at winning the National title in the next 4 years , and we ALL know, that even though atheletes dont get paid, they get a LOT of shit….thats just like getting paid.
So, therefore, VT and Miami and Florida State have a better chance at scoring to good new recruits. Like Duke in basketball, who wouldnt want to play for Duke? so they get whoever they want.
and yes, its all politics , but name one thing thats not ;)
Originally posted by mankie:Colleges have been playing sports for like 100 years! You want them to go back to the good ole 1880s?
Well if they ruin college sports, colleges may go back to being places were people go to learn stuff.
Originally posted by mankie:First, it has everything to do with making the ACC more credible as a football conference (an aside would have been letting SU in to distract the obvious football benefit, but that fell by the wayside). Then, it's all about money, TV deals and as was mentioned before, a Major Conference Championship game before the BCS bowl game. The Major Conference Championship game provides exposure for the rest of the teams and could increase potential bowl teams and thus increase dollars for the conference. Look at it this way, if your top 3 teams are Miami, Fl St. and V-Tech, wouldn't your bowl worthiness as a conference increase as opposed to FL St, MD and NC State? The closer the bowl to New Years Day and the BCS days - the more money the conference gets. Should the the ACC get two teams in the BCS - that's almost $25 million for the conference.
Wouldn't they just improve the team to try to win the title if they were in a better league? I thought it was all politics anyway for these bowl games seeing as it's by invitation that they play in them.
Anyway, I don't care enough about it to make a big deal but was just trying to understand why some people are getting their knickers in a twist over it.
The money then gets shared by each program and each program would then get better. So yes, you're right to an extent and the ACC has decided that money is the way to do that. Otherwise, the will continue to be in the shadow of the Big 12, SEC, Big 10 and PAC 10 whose football teams all make a ton of money.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I was just being sarcastic….although I do believe that some colleges have their priorities all 'effd up by putting the emphasis on sports rather than learning.
Colleges have been playing sports for like 100 years! You want them to go back to the good ole 1880s?
And trust good old Smackmeister to explain it to me perfectly. I was thinking it was a level of play or something, like when they promote the top three teams from the lower division and relegate the bottom three teams from the upper division. It's all about the $$$$$$ ! Who would've thought that in America!! ;)
Ha, the ACC just wants to be as great as the SEC, which will never happen!
Originally posted by sonickteam2:If you think this is for the players, you're sadly mistaken.
Basically, it comes down to this. If you are a high school football player, and two schools want you, Virginia and Virginia Tech…well, you arent getting paid, but VT is a much more highly revered school as far as football goes, the NFL likes that, and more scouts and TV and fans and publicity goes to VT (some of that will come to other ACC teams if VT plays them though).
Plus, VT has a better chance at winning the National title in the next 4 years , and we ALL know, that even though atheletes dont get paid, they get a LOT of shit….thats just like getting paid.
So, therefore, VT and Miami and Florida State have a better chance at scoring to good new recruits. Like Duke in basketball, who wouldnt want to play for Duke? so they get whoever they want.
and yes, its all politics , but name one thing thats not ;)
They are secondary benfeficiaries, my friend.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:Va Tech has agreed, no surpise. The reason that they look bad is that they flip flopped, and agreed immediately, too fast actually. They look really really really really desperate.
OK, thats what i thought you meant, but not sure why Maryland is involved, i thought they were being quiet about the whole thing. Basically, from a sports standpoint, if SYU, Miami and Va Tech were in the ACC, then so much for teams like Clemson and Virginia and NC State EVER winning a football title, ever again. Also, in basketball, as if its not bad enough that the 2 aforementioned teams have to play Duke and Wake Forest and Maryland, now they have to play Miami and the national champs!? I am sure Duke doesnt want to play Syracuse twice a year either.
I dont see Va Tech looking bad in this thing, but the ACC does, and so does Virginia, definitely. Sometimes I think they should make college sports like the pros, East and West and sort it out from there, instead of 20 conferences i cant keep track of.
So did they scrap the whole thing yet?
Miami will probably accept in the next day or two if they do. I'd say it's 70/30 that they accept.
Maryland is complicit, and I go there, hence I think they're setting a bad example.
Mankie, conferences have certain revenue sharing aspects. When FSU goes to a bowl, the whole ACC benefits, I dunno if it's same in the Big East, but having more good teams tends to pull the level of competition up. Maryland and NC State still can't beat FSU on a regular basis, but they're slowly developing into football powerhouses, which was no doubt hastened by FSU's entrace into the league a decade or so ago.
The thing I don't like is how this might affect bball. If, for example UMD only plays Duke once a season, that would have a really adverse effect on the rivalry that's developing, cause teams would have to wait a year to extract revenge.
Isn't that guy Beckham guilty of chasing the money as well?
Originally posted by mankie:
It's all about the $$$$$$ ! Who would've thought that in America!! ;)
Originally posted by vansmack:
If you think this is for the players, you're sadly mistaken.What i meant about the players, was when Mankie asked why teams couldnt just get better if they were in a better league, and i was saying that its not that easy. You have to recruit good players, and notoriously good schools can do that better, its like that in every sport, every conference.
They are secondary benfeficiaries, my friend.
I understand that the players have nothing to do with this realignment thing.
Originally posted by vansmack:There was a big article in, I think the NYTimes magazine saying that football teams actually tend to lose a lot of money. Funny, huh?
The money then gets shared by each program and each program would then get better. So yes, you're right to an extent and the ACC has decided that money is the way to do that. Otherwise, the will continue to be in the shadow of the Big 12, SEC, Big 10 and PAC 10 whose football teams all make a ton of money.
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
[QB]
Isn't that guy Beckham guilty of chasing the money as well?
Not the same thing. And anyway, no he didn't chase the money. He didn't want to leave United, his boss wanted him gone. (the twat!) and the only other team he could've gone to that wasn't a step down was Real Madrid.
And I wasn't knocking the fact it's about the money, just making the statement.