HokieZig

VT has a higher win %. People forget how bad Clemson was from 1960 to there National Championship year in 1981. Just in the 1960's and 1970's, Clemson was barely a .500 team. Even though Virginia Tech was horendous during the 70's, VT actually won more games than Clemson if you combine the 60's and 70's. Virginia Tech DECADE G W-L-T AVE 1930 96 46-39-11 0.536 1940 76 28-41-7 0.414 1950 100 48-48-4 0.5 1960 101 62-37-2 0.624 1970 110 47-61-2 0.436 1980 113 65-46-2 0.584 1990 117 77-39-1 0.662 2000 131 99-32 0.756 2010 133 83-50 0.624 2020 62 28-34 0.452 TOTALS 1,039 583-427-29 0.575 Clemson DECADE G W-L-T AVE 1930 95 51-37-7 0.574 1940 94 51-38-5 0.569 1950 101 64-32-5 0.658 1960 100 50-48-2 0.51 1970 113 56-54-3 0.509 1980 116 87-25-4 0.767 1990 117 69-47-1 0.594 2000 126 79-47 0.627 2010 140 117-23 0.836 2020 66 50-16 0.758 TOTALS 1,068 674-367-27 0.644 ** Edited by HokieZig at 8/21/2025, 4:34:51 PM ** Edited by HokieZig at 8/21/2025, 4:36:01 PM ** Edited by HokieZig at 8/21/2025, 4:36:40 PM

Go back to around 2010. At that point, from 1960 to 2010, Virginia Tech had the better record in those years and was on different playing field. Clemson at that point had gone 20 years without winning 10 games in a season. Over that same time period Virginia Tech had 12 seasons with 7 in a row. If you asked anyone to compare the schools, everyone would say, Virginia Tech is the better football school. They were winning 10+ games a year, were in the national championship talk every couple of years, had the better coaching staff, had more alumni, had the better players and the best outlook on the future. So, I agree with all your points that if Clemson can do it Virginia Tech can also.

Lets just look at Fidelity. They manage $4.5 Trillion. They are encouraging 1% to 3% allocation in there funds. Which is ironic because anyone that has allocated just 2% of there net worth (by dollar averaging in every month) at any time since the inception of bitcoin has outdone anyone that was just in the S&P by a huge amount. Bank America said the price multiple was 118:1 per coin. Basically, $1 million in fresh buying the market cap would increase by $118 million. Using that info 1% of $4.5 trillion is $45 billion. That means the market cap would increase by $5.31 trillion with these numbers. There will only be 21 million bitcoins. Divide $5.31 Trillion by 21 million and you get a price increase of $252K. That is very conservative numbers. We are not even talking about the other places like blackrock or any other financial institution. The increase in bitcoin right now is all about the ETF's and money managers allocating money towards bitcoin. I look at this as being one of the biggest wealth divides ever because the rich will get richer and the poor and blind will be left behind. The same people that have been doubting cryptos are the same ones that doubted the internet. Now, it will be a volatile ride. The people who got in early can sit back and watch. We know how volatile cryptos are. We have the tolerance to see huge gains disappear in minutes. But for the new people, the more volatility, the more the big guns can shake out the small hands. Look at all the people that got liquidated when they jumped in at $63K, saw it rise to $64k only to see it drop to $58700 in a matter of minutes.

That deal was great in the past but not currently. When you are dealing with ESPN, its not whether its a good deal, its whether they can get a better deal. If ESPN does not renew, they know, that the ACC new deal will be less then the current one. The ACC brought in 3 schools that remember ESPN or Fox did not want when the Big12 was looking to expand. Of course he ACC leadership and media (who by the way both have not been very honest) says they add the west coast market and timeslots but go look at how the Big12 turned those schools down. It wasn't even a maybe, it was a hell no. Now ESPN has to pay for those 3 schools for the next 10 years? Put the ACC TV deal back on the market in 2025 and it doesn't get the money they are paying now. On top of that, FSU made up 20 to 25 of the revenue. FSU is 99.9% gone in next 2 years. So we expect ESPN to pay 20% more for the 3 schools that bring nothing to the table except crappy games in the 10 pm EST time slot. Then also losing the top school and loose 20% of the revenue when FSU brings in. That turns into a good deal to a horrible deal in the next year. That's not even adding into the fact that the ACC may lose Clemson and or UNC. Without either of those 2, it becomes even worst. The sooner the acc leadership and fanbase comes to reality that ESPN will not renew the contract the better off the ACC will be. For the last 25 years, the ACC has been stuck in a reactive mode instead of a proactive mode. And now we are seeing the death of the ACC.

ESPN said no to a Pac12 and ACC merger. Remember, they did a whole analysis and said it added no value to the ACC. Why would ESPN say no to a merger yet want the ACC to add bottom feeding Stanford and Cal? ESPN never agreed to Stanford and Cal. The ACC added them without any input from ESPN and because of that ESPN will drop the ACC in 2025.

The last deal ESPN offered the Pac 12 was $30 million a year per school. The Pac 12 turned it down because they wanted $50 million a year. After they turned down the deal, ESPN said goodbye. But remember, the majority of the money would have come from Washington and Oregon who then left after that deal was turned down. The next 4 biggest names went to the Big12. Stanford and Cal are no way near worth $30 million. Everyone is acting like Cal and Stanford are 2 great tv schools. The Fox and the Big12 turned them down immediately because they don't bring anything to the table. But we are suppose to believe ESPN wanted them?

Remember the ACC added 3 teams that no one wanted. Fox made it a strong point they didn't want those schools so what makes anyone think ESPN wanted them? ESPN already was on record saying the PAC 12 games would not add any value to the ACC. So what did the ACC do? They added 2 PAC 12 schools with the worst tv ratings in the PAC 12 and SMU without any favorable input from ESPN. Now, ESPN has to pay around $90 million a year for those 3 schools. 12 years times $90 Million a year is $1.08 Billion for virtually nothing in return. Tell me one TV network that is willing to pay $1.08 billion with little in return. Adding the 3 teams completely destroyed the ACC media value. With FSU looking to get out, this becomes a bad deal over the next 12 years to an absolute horrendous deal for ESPN. Lose FSU and either Clemson, UNC or Miami and it becomes one of the worst TV deals ever. I don't expect for ESPN to renew this deal. They probably would have except the ACC went and added 3 teams no one wanted.

They have to pay at a prorated price and those schools don't bring in the tv viewership. Go look at the TV numbers for those schools. They will take a bath on those schools. There is no way ESPN approved it. ESPN is trying to cut costs. Not increase spending with little in return. Phillips kept this from the ACC schools and FSU is learning all this now. FSU has an out, and they don't even have to fight the GOR.

Apparently the ACC added the 3 schools without input from ESPN. ESPN is not happy with ACC because they did not want to add 3 schools at a prorated price. The ESPN contract with ACC turns to renewable each year by ESPN after 2025 season. ESPN will be losing money with the addition of 3 schools and will not renew the contract. They will be happy with just the SEC. Apparently the yearly renewing of the contract was not known by the schools. The GOR will be invalidated and schools will be free to leave.

Does that mean high schools should be paying there athletes? Do we pay the average Joe for doing a hobby? Where does it end?

SMU to the ACC actually makes a lot more sense than California and Stanford. Its clear, SMU is going to throw a lot of money at the athletics, especially football. I am not so sure about the Olympic sports. They also have a lot of very good athletes very close to the campus. Add in the fact that there NIL money will out pay most ACC schools. Its going to take them a few years to get going but they look like with the right leadership they could be a very successful school in athletics.

Total cumulative "Donations/Contributions" 2005-22; Per USAToday/Knight Commission (In Millions $; Public schools only): 1 Oregon $969 Million 2 Texas A & M $849 3 Texas $766 4 Florida $763 5 Georgia $716 6 Oklahoma St $670 7 LSU $618 8 Oklahoma $597 9 Auburn $580 10 Florida State $540 11 Ohio State $536 12 Alabama $528 13 Virginia $516 14 Tennessee $500 15 Michigan $493 16 Iowa $477 17 Clemson $476 18 South Carolina $466 19 Kansas $459 20 Louisville $450 21 Michigan St $439 22 Washington $402 23 Texas Tech $396 24 Wisconsin $389 25 Penn State $386 26 Illinois $373 27 West Virginia $354 28 Indiana $351 29 Arizona $346 30 North Carolina $344 31 Mizzou $344 32 Arkansas $324 33 Kansas St $324 34 Va Tech $319 35 Ole Miss $310 36 Kentucky $302 37 Purdue $289 38 Cal $283 39 Mississippi St $273 40 Arizona St $265 41 Iowa St $249 42 Nebraska $236 43 UCLA $233 44 Georgia Tech $220 45 NC State $216 46 Colorado $208 47 Oregon St $201 48 Minnesota $199 49 Maryland $194 50 Memphis $170 51 Utah $159 52 Wash St $146 53 Boise St $140 54 Rutgers $136 55 UConn $134 56 ECU $134 57 SDSU $132 58 UCF $128 59 UNLV $127 60 Fresno St $117 61 Cincinnati $115 62 New Mexico $113 63 Nevada $97 64 Wyoming $93 65 Houston $91 66 Hawaii $89 67 Old Dominion $84 68 Colorado St $83 69 Charlotte $78 70 Southern Miss $70 71 Louisiana (Lafayette) $69 72 UAB $69 73 Marshall $68 74 LaTech $68 75 Arkansas State $64 76 South Florida $63 77 Toledo $58 78 UTEP $58 79 App State $56 80 Utah State $56 81 FAU $52 82 San Jose State $44 83 Texas State $43 84 Bowling Green $42 85 North Texas $41 86 WKU $41 87 Ohio $35 88 Troy $34 89 Miami (OH) $33 90 Air Force $32 91 UTSA $32 92 Georgia So $31 93 NMSU $31 94 MTSU $30 95 CMU $29 96 UMass $28 97 NIU $28 98 Akron $25 99 Georgia State $24 100 WMU $24 101 Ball State $23 102 Coastal Carolina $21 103 LA-Monroe $20 104 FIU $19 105 Buffalo $17 106 South Alabama $17 107 Kent State $12 108 EMU $12 Observations from Jeff Fuller - @jjfuller72: -Oregon and OkSt stand out and are clearly so high because of their mega-whale donors Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens -All SEC schools are within the top 40 (which actually represts a "top 50-ish" ranking when factoring in Private schools which would be in the top 45, like Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Duke, Miami, Northwestern, TCU... and prossibly even Baylor, Vandy and BYU) -Current Big Ten doesn't have a single school in the top 10 despite having blue bloods OSU/Mich -All basketball blue bloods are within the top 40, led by Kansas at 19th

Currently there are 10 votes for yes and 5 for no but how many are needed to pass expansion?

Virginia, UNC, North Carolina State, FSU and Clemson

From Article A grant of rights has been an effective tool preventing defections, but it’s effectiveness was rooted in the fact that major conferences split their media rights, at the very least, between two networks – ESPN and Fox. The SEC’s media rights were split between CBS and ESPN. The Big 12, Big Ten and Pac 12 split their rights with ESPN and Fox. And here’s where recent history teaches us a lesson. The issue that prevented Oklahoma and Texas from leaving the Big 12 much earlier than 2024 was how to make Fox whole for losing valuable inventory featuring the blackheart traitors. And that’s why the ACC grant of rights can’t stop FSU from leaving for the SEC. ESPN owns the exclusive rights to both conferences. The ACC can’t revoke ESPN’s exclusive rights to broadcast FSU home games. Doing so would reduce ESPN’s inventory and that means it’s the ACC who loses money, not FSU.

The ACC needs to go on the offensive. Notre Dame is never joining the ACC. If they join a conference it will the B10. The problem with the ACC, is they are always reactive and 5 years too late. The big 10 and SEC have shown the way for the future. The goal of the ACC should be to be the 3rd best conference right now. To do that, invite WVU and another school from big 12. This would weaken the Big 12. Anything the Big12 and Pac put together will not match the new ACC.

another school simply for there Olympic Sports?

dissolving GOR taking more than 8 schools? People that have read the bylaws have confirmed what was written in the 2 articles.

Although, I don't think the SEC and B10 are going to 20 teams, he did have to major tidbits of information. 1. Clay confirms what Luke DeCock's reported that the ACC requires only a majority of voting members to agree to dissolving the GOR. Many have said it takes a super majority but he confirms it is only a majority. Clay does not state it but Notre Dame does get a full vote. This makes the possibility of the ACC breaking up a bigger possibility. ESPN may think that its more valuable to take the top 4 to 6 schools from ACC and move them into the SEC and get rid of the dead weight of the schools like BC, Duke, Wake, etc. 2. The next piece I have not seen reported but is a huge thing. The SEC deal with ESPN guarantees all new “top” expansion candidates will receive the same pro rata payment in the event of expansion as the current schools receive. That means whoever ESPN agrees to who are "top" if they are added to SEC, they prorate the contract for the teams added. It would be nice to know who they consider "top". But in the near term, the SEC does not have to worry about "losing" money for adding a new team. It will be interesting to see if the B10 has that wording in there contract. If you do, then I would expect Washington and Oregon to move to B10 a year or 2 after the new contract is signed. On another note. What is the fascination with these national writer's with UVA? Other than being linked to UNC, what do they bring to the table. Its not football prestige, its not fans, its not TV viewers? I think we have seen with the last 2 or 3 expansions with Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA and USC, those bonds are no longer applicable. Otherwise California would have gone with USC and UCLA and Oklahoma St would have gone with Oklahoma.

There is no language in the ACC’s bylaws and constitution covering dissolution of the conference, other than a standard boilerplate clause about the distribution of property. The North Carolina law governing the dissolution of nonprofits would theoretically apply, requiring only a majority of voting members to agree to it. (Notre Dame, for some reason, gets a full vote and not 20 percent of a vote, even though it only gets a one-fifth share of revenue. That has never been sufficiently explained.)

including Notre Dame. People have assumed it is a super majority but the bylaws do not mention super majority.

If they did that then Notre Dame would be gone. I see this happening only if ND decides to go to Big 10. Otherwise, ESPN will do whatever it can to get Notre Dame either in ACC or SEC.