All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by

Conference Realignment Board

VTHokie2000

Joined: 01/01/2005 Posts: 33818
Likes: 12458


I agree that the ACC didn't have either school on the radar


in 2004. The primary reason I included Rutgers was to use as leverage with Penn State. Although having Rutgers in the ACC may not be that bad from a football standpoint. The ACC could rotate its football conference championship game between NYC, Balt/DC, Charlotte, and Orlando. Also keep in mind the failure of the WAC 16 member experiment was still fresh in people's minds. Back then it was known one of the failures was a lack of TV. If a conference was going to expand to 14 or 16 members back then, then one of the end products would need to be a conference network. The ACC would have been the best basketball conference since the Big East would have been crippled. A ripple effect could have been that UConn would have been forced to vamp up its football program more quickly than originally planned. If UConn had gone down that route, then they would have been a more desirable option if a school ever left the ACC for another conference. Also, the state may have decided to keep UConn's on-campus football stadium instead of building a new stadium in East Hartford and a multi-million dollar basketball practice facility where the football stadium once stood.

I realize what I have been proposing is bold. Maybe even very bold in a few places. However, if a conference wants to be the leader of the pack or a commissioner wants to be consider a visionary, then it requires making bold moves at times. Instead the ACC allowed other conferences to make the first and it has been playing catch up ever since.

If Swofford ends up being a visionary on the next evolution of content distribution, then it will be interesting to see what type of long-term dividends it pays for the ACC. If it doesn't pay the kind the dividends that the Big Ten saw from being the first conference with its own network or the SEC being the first conference to host a CCG, then it will be interesting to see the reaction from the fanbases. Hopefully it isn't a bitter sweet one because the ACC didn't capitalize on the "Golden Age of Dividends" (aka 1990-2006).

(In response to this post by HOO86)

Posted: 06/06/2017 at 4:27PM



+0

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
 
  
Future movement -- SoCloseHokie 06/05/2017 08:12AM
  Might not have choice? Explain. ** -- Maroon Baboon 06/07/2017 1:41PM
  Imho -- SoCloseHokie 06/07/2017 10:02PM
  Time will tell -- SoCloseHokie 06/08/2017 04:44AM
  Are you sure about Swofford? -- VTHokie2000 06/05/2017 3:23PM
  Always wonder why BC was chosen over Syracuse -- I85Hokie 06/07/2017 4:37PM
  ACC is not going to 16 teams in my life time. -- Atlee Hokie 06/07/2017 07:41AM
  Keep an eye on your last statement. ** -- Stech 06/07/2017 08:45AM
  I'll be 70 in September. -- Atlee Hokie 06/07/2017 4:37PM
  Al GORE? j/k. I agree with your post ** -- goldendomer 06/07/2017 07:51AM
  At least Boston is a big market... -- Mr. Touchdown 06/05/2017 5:01PM
  Boston Market -- Millpoint 06/05/2017 8:26PM
  BC was added for their ice hockey program -- EDGEMAN 06/05/2017 8:59PM
  We should at least leverage BC Ice Hockey -- Truthahn 06/06/2017 1:49PM
  Notre Dame Hockey has contract with NBC. -- HOO86 06/06/2017 3:18PM
  I agree it would have made more sense if the ACC was also -- VTHokie2000 06/05/2017 10:28PM
  Who were they supposed to add? -- HOO86 06/06/2017 2:54PM
  If the ACC was expanding from 9 members to 14 -- VTHokie2000 06/06/2017 3:48PM
  We're getting there. Just not in 2004. -- HOO86 06/06/2017 4:06PM
  OkSt to PAC? Nope. Not without OU and maybe even Texas. -- Maroon Baboon 06/05/2017 10:39AM

Tech Sideline is Presented By:

Our Sponsors

vm307