TheLavisShow

Ok so I don't know if anyone has stated this earlier in the thread or not but can't we all agree in about 20 years we'll all be screwed with the notion of relocations and the rising population centers. Last time I checked all the young people are moving to Austin, in 20 years they'll all be in their 40s, and last time I checked Austin has zero pro teams. Houston will be the 4th or 5th largest metro area in the US and yet they have no NHL team near them. Cinicinnati will want a team that plays in an arena. Baltimore will wonder why it can't have an NBA team when it's an obvious basketball talent hotbed (for those who think Philly and DC are too close that didn't squash the Ravens and Orioles from being born). Canada might want to get in on the action, in particular Vancouver, in the major sports they don't have or have only one team in. Conneticut might want a team in a sport since are slowly becoming NYC's largest suburb. The point is in times like this I look at the model in England and the rest of Europe in terms of soccer. Every city and even suburb (sometimes two in one suburb) has a soccer team, and if the owners want the club to do good it's up to them at what extent. Imagine if every city in America that was over 50,000 people managed to have at least one team in a promotion-relegation system within a pro sport. Imagine if we had a more glorious cup (I know we have the Lamar Hunt Cup for US soccer and the Memorial Cup for Canadian minor league teams) in every sport that was as sought after as the top tier's championship is and is as open to everyone as the FA Cup. Just imagine a third round cup match between Los Angeles and Bakersfield or for the East Coasters a match between NYC and Burlington, VT. I'm sorry if I'm a little soccer heavy but after all this Bradford City stuff in the Capital One Cup I'm really hoping one day a baseball team from Eugene, OR could take down Houston or Chicago in a serious game.

That is my point. And they aren't going to let it happen to VT either. If no one wants UVA, that is their problem, not VT's. And do you get what I was trying to say up there? Obviously it wasn't that the ACC is UVA's safe harbor. If no one wants UVA, that is Virginia Tech's problem, because either both schools with have safe homes or neither. Count on it. The legislature stepped in to force the ACC to add Virginia Tech because of concerns that Virginia Tech was going to be left in a disintegrating Big East that didn't care for football. Fair enough on your opinion. We see it different ways. I think they rather have one successful than none at all. Especially if the Commonwealth was the reason that both went down. My opinion on it. Again, the BE situation was different because VT could only go up and no one could go down. In this situation both schools can go down based on this. It defies the reason to have it to begin with. It's not opinion. It's been stated. The commonwealth controls the power to allow/disallow either school to switch. VT's gonna be fine. They're a big time program. UVa is not. It's not a luxury of salvaging one over the other. I respectfully disagree here, too. I think money and power (legal team) can get you out of anything. The SEC has money and I think they (the school trying to leave for greener pastures) has a valid argument. But hey, if you are right, maybe the SEC will give VA the finger and settle on FSU. I think when your talking about schools that are in-state and have been competing against each other in some fashion for some extended period of time, legislators are looking at the best interest in the longevity of a fanbase and not seeming like they're putting all their eggs in one basket. I'm from WA so I look at UW and WSU. If it weren't for the fact there was no other real contender for a large school in our state, WSU would be long gone from the Pac 8 probably much like in the fashion the conference "had no room" for the University of Idaho back in the day and have been replaced by lets say BYU. They could do that cause who the hell back then was close to the level of UI in the state of Idaho. Plus the WSU would revolt if they thought the state government was favoring UW to prosper. It's along the same reason as to why the University of Montana hasn't taken the leap to the MWC, because the MWC would have to take Montana State as well so the Bobcat fanbase wouldn't revolt. All-in-all its politics. VT and UVA are now handcuffed much like UW/WSU, UO/OSU (both versions), and UNC/NCST. Sure one might not be living up to potential for quite sometime but once they get linked up it's hard to split them up. Watch, if let's say Clemson and Florida St go to the SEC, you just got two more new handcuffs

I guess my major unpopular opinion is I hate the colors of the Dallas Cowboys, NY Giants, and Chicago Bears. Their colors are just so bland and boring and their logos combined with them just make the overall appearance so basic. Also unless it's used as a third color I don't think Navy has any place in a teams primary colors. Not even the likes of Notre Dame or Navy itself looks good in Navy. All I'm saying is what's wrong with Dodger Blue.