Off-season topic for debate: would switching conferences have made VU football more successful?

[FayetteDore]

OK, Duke.

Among current ACC members, Duke ranks 4th in ACC conference championships, with 7 since the conference formed in 1953. Most recent was 1989.

In addition to those 7 conference championships, Duke was Coastal division champion in 2013 and played in the championship game (losing to FSU, which went on to win the BCS national championship that year). The ACC football championship game began in 2005.

In addition to Duke, speaking of "like minded, similarly situated" institutions:

• Wake Forest has two ACC championships (most recently in 2006), and was its divisional champ just last year.
  
  George Tech (who I view as similarly situated) has 2 ACC championships since it joined the conference in 1983, mostly recently in 1998. In addition, it has played in the championship 4 times (in 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2014). And for the record, Tech had 5 SEC championships.
  
  UVa (who I view as similarly situated) has 2 ACC championships and also played in the 2019 championship game.

Compare all that to the number of Vanderbilt SEC championships and appearances in SEC championship games.

Also, in this century, VU has been to 6 bowls. Duke has been to 6, UVa 10, Wake 11 and Georgia Tech 17. In this century.

Bottom line: while Clemson, FSU and Va Tech have dominated ACC championships in recent years, the ACC schools most like Vanderbilt have been much more competitive within their conference than VU has been in its conference. Which has also allowed them to go to more bowls.

[alathIN]

This answer depends on whether you think Vanderbilt football's core problem is excessive competition or lack of interest.

Being in a lesser conference, not playing the historical rivalries, etc., would be very detrimental to what little interest there is.

Having lesser competition could translate to more wins in the short run. Hard to predict what the long term effect on interest, recruiting, etc would be.

[alathIN]

Re, Duke and Wake:
These are comparable private academic oriented institutions.
However they have not had an institutional culture of hostility to athletics. Both Duke and Wake have greater flexibility with admissions etc. I do think they make accommodations like priority class scheduling for athletes. I am not saying they have "basketweaving for football players" majors, but they are more willing to make reasonable concessions to the realities of being a college athlete.
Better support from the administration would be / will be essential to Vanderbilt success regardless of which conference we're in.

I'm not saying abandon the academic mission. But, for instance, a brilliantly talented musician who's weak in math would probably get in to Blair School. The engineering school is full of math geniuses who are incapable of comprehensible speech. Within reasonable bounds, I don't see any reason that excellence in athletics should be treated any differently.

[inesw]

Yes, all of the moves between conferences over the past 30 years reflect that football is everything.

[DeefromAtlanta]

No.

I think moving out of the conference would have decimated the program. Funding from television and donations would have fallen dramatically. The only sports not to suffer would have been the bowling team and probably men's golf.

If I could add other questions for a slow news cycle:

1. Will pledging $300,000,000 in athletics infrastructure upgrades secure our future moving forward?

2. Could there be another fracture of present-day conference alignments?

At least four years ago, I proposed a merger of the ACC and the SEC. I thought the coalition made perfect sense moving forward. (I still do.) It would've accomplished the long-term goal of the joint conferences dominating the revenue-generating sports at the highest level of collegiate athletics both on the field and where it matters most to the powers-that-be, on television sets across the country.
It would have led to a more systematic, comprehensive expansion. Would Texas and Oklahoma have left the Big12 sooner? Would Notre Dame's hand been called? Would it still be independent? Would there have been defectors from other conferences? Would the Big10 & 12 merge with a handful of Pac12 teams?

I also think the new conference would have given more strength and cover to a modified Magnolia Division of Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake, and Syracuse. Other logical state rivalries would be rekindled and given even greater importance. The football playoff system would already be at least an 8-team tournament. The schedules for each team would have been chocked full of quality match-ups.

And with the erosion of the NCAA as a governing body, the new super conference would've allowed the conference(s) to dictate how it was governed, secured unlimited $$, and probably brought a more timely change to how college athletes are supported today.

But I digress. :0)