TDVick

legacy, who be a bit similar to the Maryland hire, this might be a bit too much to expect. But VT hasn't gotten AAU status and is certainly on the outside for a B10 spot. Contrast that to the Maryland hire that you mentioned. VT has risen in the academic rankings, but how much of that would have happened without Sands? Quite a bit, I suspect. He seems to have whiffed on some important things. The second similarity is that VT seems to have punched below its weight in several areas for a long time and bringing in new people might help.

and then the B1G got USC and UCLA. Those four (three) were such large fish that all the new additions are pro rata dilutive to the per team payout. It is hard to justify any expansion other than ND, UNC and now Miami. That's why... as I banged the drum back in 2011 (I think you and Techocrat were some of the few that grasped this), that the early movers got locked in and secured. Now that Texas, Oklahoma and SCAL are added, not many teams can match their marginal revenue contribution. So many people really screwed this up by not bailing in 2011. Once you get past NC, UNC and now Miami, the primary motive for expanding is to avoid poltical harassment from Congress. I think the B10 should add Miami and maybe the Arizona school becuase their fan bases are so large and travel so well, they can make a mint off of ticket sales and hotels. ** Edited by TDVick at 7/27/2026, 5:54:56 AM ** Edited by TDVick at 7/27/2026, 6:53:49 AM

because he preferred the B10 over SEC or was at least ambivalent? That brought out a lot of knives by alums who didn't want to be in the B10. Clearly, UNC won't be in the ACC when the next round occurs. Consequently, I pencil them as close to a "lock" to go to the SEC.

to the SEC if it leads to VT getting stranded. I thought this was largely true even in 2011, when our program was much better. Why? Because UNC is highly desired and they prefer to pair with UVA rather than VT. The problem is that other teams like Clemson and Miami improved since 2011. Also from a political science motive, Mark Warner realized that VT has more appeal in rural areas and it behooved him to be very conspicuous in his support for VT in 2003, so that he could triangulate and add to his coalition. Once one party begins to dominate, there is less incentive to do this. If the expansion table gets set so that it comes down to one school lands a spot or NO SCHOOL lands a spot, which is quite possible, how does that play out? In that case, I agree with you that UVa probably gets selected. The optimistic view for VT is that if a P2 expands into VA, the other P2 will want a presence. That is why UVa needs to land in the B10. ** Edited by TDVick at 7/26/2026, 5:37:48 AM

I have my pecking order for which schools have the most clout to get selected. If the expansion numbers were 44, which I think are sort of odd compared to 40, then I would feel better about our chances.

I don't care whether they look like clowns or not. Their story fits my game theoretic version of what is happening. We should really hope that UVa gets a B10 invite over Duke. The next problem is whether Duke snakes our SEC spot. Hope this is helpful.

point made and this is important to all of us. I lean to the positive side, but that means I put my trust in the state pols of VA and NC exhibiting some competence, which is very contrary to my nature, no matter who is elected? If I knew the B10 and SEC went to 44, not 40, I would feel a lot better. ** Edited by TDVick at 7/26/2026, 4:45:49 AM

are 7 teams for slots and the teams are UM, UNC, Clemson, FSU, VT, UVA and NCSU, I think UM and UNC are locks. Clemson and FSU look like the next two and there is shuffling btw UVA, VT and NCSU. If UNC were slotted for the B10, I would like our SEC chances better. The state of VA seems to have a stance that UVA can't leave if it harms VT. Now the B10 might grab Duke instead of UVA. That could result in a situation where VT had a spot in the SEC and now the Hoos might not have a landing spot in the B10. I think that UNC might be behind this. We have always gotten screwed by UNC during the past 60 years. Our fan base and leadership had their heads up their rear ends in 2011. We were preferred to Missouri and only had to win a head-to-head matchup against them - which we obviously would have won. Now we are one of seven teams (eight if you count Duke), that is clawing for 6 spots. If UNC negotiates Duke a spot in the B10 rather than UVA, then will our UVA grad governor let UVA be stranded at VT's expense? In which case UNC would have its preferred pair entrant in the SEC, UVa not VT. That is my reason for pessimism.

which I always thought was a bit douchey. So who gets left without a "chair" in the game of musical chairs? The State of VA is not going to let UVA go somewhere if it leaves VT stranded. It seems that the politicians in NC started acting similar to the ones in VA and made it mandatory that UNC finds a spot for NCSU. Any movement is contingent on security for NCSU in a P2. There is a similar dynamic in both states and UNC is the most desirable of the four schools. I don't think the Big Ten really wants NCSU - even though they are more attractive than Rutgers or MD in my opinion. The schools that moved early - Mizz, Rutgers and MD were smart and schools like VT were stupid as hell - as I mentioned MANY times back then. VT should have left in 2011 and UVA should have grabbed Maryland or Rutger's spot in 2014. UNC STRONGLY prefers the SEC over B10. They basically fired their president a while back and all the old alums took over the board. That is how is looks to me. Someone is going grab a team from VA, but the state pols won't let UVA go to the SEC if it leaves VT stranded. Since UNC will bring NCSU with them the to SEC, they are basically being told, "you can't have both." You can't bring NCSU AND UVA. They would rather bring UVA and Duke but since they are a state school they have to insist on NCSU. Landing spots for NCSU, VT and UNC have been negotiated, once UNC tipped to the SEC. UNC had to split the UVA pairing when it chose the SEC. It sure seems that way and I really hope so, because that is the best that VT can probably do. Had UNC preferred the B10, they UVA and Duke probably would be in the B10. The only other thing I'd like to know is are the two P2's going to 20 and 20? ** Edited by TDVick at 7/26/2026, 10:06:40 AM

machine for the forseeable future. But let's watch the genteel Virginian/ Duke and UVa wannabes who have the tailgate at Wake Forest marked with a big red X on their calendar, crinkle their noses. Texas Tech is running their program like a Ferrari combined with a stomper truck Death Machine - an attitude that VT has been completely missing. Texas Tech is an exciting draw and it might spur our fans to get some laser focus as well.

New Year's Day bowl that includes a Big 10 team, but lots of people own farms which are pretty much on lockdown and run by a skeleton crew all winter. People are very eager to get out of town. Both the B10 and B12 (heartland) teams travel like no one else. It has always been that that way - Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl. Miami is an obvious gem to add to their portfolio. They should add the Arizona schools as well and run high ticket price neutral site games in Miami and Phoenix or book back-to-back road games versus UCLA and USC so the fans can stay in LA all week. I know that broadcasting is driving this, but Wisconsin or Indiana could sell 40,000 road tickets weeks in a row for $150 a piece and made $12 million if they played USC and UCLA on a two game swing. The dumbass BE or ACC could never do this.

is approved they probably need to have at least 52 to 54 to not get hassled by the Feds, so they need to placate 60 senators. A youtube said the Oregon and Washington delegation flew to B10 headquarters. You can't rule out that they might be getting heavy pressure to add OSU and WSU. If it dilutes your payout somewhat to avoid regulatory/legislative risk, it is probably worth it. WVU and UConn are two schools that could bring one school and probably two senators so they are underrated as possible acquisitions. Lou, GT and IAST could get pulled in and not bring extra senators, but keep the current ones from defecting. Mag 7 Lou GT IAST is at least 10 schools and you only have senators from 25 states locked up (excluding OR, WA and CA). This will get very nasty and it is very easy to block or punish the P2. They need more senators and that final number will be bigger than than the addition of 7-8 teams. I think it will be 14 or maybe more.

** Edited by TDVick at 7/3/2026, 3:34:20 PM

Glass half full, amigo.

states, while the Big Ten covers 14 states now that Washington, Oregon, and California have been added. If you are worried about adverse federal legislation and want the Senate to be able to block it, you realistically need at least 26 states represented. The political objective is to assemble enough “college football–friendly” senators to form a reliable blocking coalition. It is highly uncertain whether California’s senators would go to bat for USC and UCLA, given how those moves affected other in‑state schools. Oregon and Washington might be somewhat more sympathetic to Oregon State and Washington State, but even that is far from guaranteed. Florida State and Clemson are valuable properties and will find homes in the P2 regardless, but from this specific political‑coverage perspective they are somewhat redundant. This puts Virginia and North Carolina at the center of the expansion logic. Each state has two linchpin public universities, and the companion schools are not a substantial drop‑off from the premier brands. In Virginia, it is essentially a coin flip among the top options. In North Carolina, NC State is a notch below UNC as a brand, but far more attractive in relative terms than Oregon State or Washington State. At present, there are 23 states whose senators should be unambiguously pro–college football. Adding Virginia and North Carolina via UNC, UVA, Virginia Tech, and NC State would raise that number to 25. Arizona is a plausible additional target. The Arizona schools appear to be better television and political draws than Kansas and Kansas State. After (or alongside) the Arizona schools, a logical next move is to bring in Cal and Stanford. Georgia Tech may also be pulled in to shore up support from Georgia’s senators. Georgia is heavily dominated by UGA, but you could still imagine a disgruntled senator scenario akin to Ann Richards going to bat for Baylor as Texas governor, which suggests conferences may want a bit of cushion via an extra in‑state addition. This political logic is why I feel reasonably optimistic about VT's chances—less because of administrative competence and more because of structural incentives. Political science perspectives would be welcome here. My base prediction is that the “Magnificent Seven” (FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, VT, UVA, and NC State) ultimately land in the P2. Georgia Tech likely gets added to reinforce Georgia; Arizona and Arizona State, and/or Cal and Stanford, round out the next wave. If you want to lock in 26 pairs of senators, Arizona is the most likely route. Utah and BYU are problematic: they are constantly at odds with each other, and BYU is private. If you prioritize political protection (first objective) and avoid excessively dilutive companion schools (second objective), Virginia and North Carolina look like the highest‑probability additions. I expect there will ultimately be 10 additions to the P2, taking the total from 34 to at least 44: the Mag 7, Georgia Tech, Arizona, and Arizona State. That level of consolidation likely pushes Notre Dame to join rather than risk being disadvantaged again. Notre Dame would probably want Stanford and Cal attached, which pushes the count of “locked‑in” states to 27. At that point, Kansas and Duke are logical additional picks (or Utah instead of one of them). A 48‑team P2 looks like a plausible upper bound. West Virginia is a potential dark horse. WVU occupies one slot but brings two senators, which is attractive if the conferences prefer not to add the Arizona schools. If the Big Ten and SEC can coexist rather than cannibalize each other, they jointly need to lock down roughly 27 pairs of senators to dictate future legislation. If 60 total votes are required and the filibuster is in play, then the Mag 7 plus various other combinations can reach the blocking threshold. Under a filibuster scenario, some otherwise unexpected teams—WVU, Oregon State, Washington State—could enter the picture, which sounds far‑fetched but is not impossible. There are also potential leverage plays. Could Iowa’s, Georgia’s, or Kentucky’s senators insist on Iowa State, Georgia Tech, or Louisville as conditions? Assuming Colorado can be admitted without bringing Colorado State, Colorado might be squeezed in on similar logic to WVU. My guess is that Oregon’s and Washington’s senators will not block an expansion that disadvantages Oregon State and Washington State; that was implicitly the political deal when Oregon and Washington were accepted into the Big Ten. In this scenario, you would have 27 pairs of senators and seven additional teams (41 total) but still need three more pairs of senators to feel secure. If the filibuster is relevant, expansion within the SEC (to 16) and Big Ten (to 18) moves the combined total closer to 48. It is difficult to reach 30 pairs of senators without having roughly 48 total P2 teams, which implies adding about 14 new members. As always, politics resembles watching sausage being made, and the final alignment will be messy. Within that messy process, Virginia Tech looks particularly well positioned if the numbers grow, which I think they will. ** Edited by TDVick at 7/3/2026, 5:13:40 PM ** Edited by TDVick at 7/3/2026, 5:21:44 PM

sure VT gets a spot. UVA might want to go SEC with UNC, but they won't be "allowed." The VA and NC pols probably have an understanding - no matter which party they are, it behooves them to collaborate.

to the B10. Travel is nasty, but otherwise the B10 looks to have better financials. Hate to say it but UNC is the whale in this and they can pull in NCSU redundantly. Maybe someone can correct me but it seems that having two schools from SC, VA are redundant, likewise GT. Florida is such a huge state that it doesn't matter. If FSU goes to the SEC, it seems like the FL politicians steered them there to help UF since Miami is private. I would think that FSU would strongly prefer being in the B10 with Miami than in the SEC.

than adding us both now. The existing baseline numbers would be the same or better (assuming we added more value than Missouri). Bringing in UVA and UNC would be attractive. Now, since Missouri is already in there, adding VT, UNC and UNC looks a bit more redundant. Our pro forma as an existing member would look a lot better than our current status. This situation was screwed up on so many dimensions. Basically Missouri was filler to match with A&M, nevertheless they took a slice of the pie.

trends were apparent back then. It would have been a lot better for UVa as well if we had bailed in 2012. Had we already been in the SEC, UNC might have been able to pull them in this round if that is where they wanted to go. I'm basing this on the thought that adding two schools from the same state is dilutive and undesirable. Once the SEC gets one VA team, they probably don't want another, unless that is a requirement to get UNC.

ironed out by now. Clearly, one of the P2 wants a team in VA. I think that fact that we are not AAU hinders us with the B10. Moreover, it seems that the B10 is financially superior to the SEC (sadly). My guess that the politicians engineered UVa away from the SEC to get us a spot. Whether these guys are full of crap or not, the story makes a lot of sense to me as a stand alone bargaining outcome. ** Edited by TDVick at 7/2/2026, 6:36:35 AM

say but UVA's money and academics, plus the fact that they aren't that good at football makes them a slightly more desirable acquisition than VT. If we can't go somewhere together, then shoe-horning VT into the SEC rather than UVA taking that slot an potentially leaving us out of P2 is preferable. That's my take. UNC has a LOT of clout and they prefer to join the SEC with UVA, but the State of Virginia won't allow that. UVa probably has a solid spot in either conference. We might not, so this is the horse trade that is made.

other areas. I just hope that VT can start finding some strengths and playing to them, rather than letting each deficiency or weakness drown us - which seemed to be the case until the new BOV came along. They seem to have flipped script. Based on the article his top achievement was reeling in money for the naming rights. He was in a much larger metro area, so hopefully that won't matter. He hired Kiffin and May which are hard to beat. The other hires weren't as good, but FAU probably isn't the easiest place to hire. ** Edited by TDVick at 6/29/2026, 8:55:56 AM

enough money to be good if people (Pry) and Whit knew what they were doing. I can come up with about $10 million that would be lying around if they had. Such as .... Buzz's backend loaded contract that left us with an empty cupboard (Whit only). Pry's severance ($3 million) OC and DC extensions that should have never been made ($3 million or so), plus hiring their replacement and having to pay redundant salaries. Correct me if I'm wrong but this screwup wasted $6-7 million total? Pry's extension after our glorious win over UVA to go 6-6 and beat a decimated Tulane in a bowl? I make the case that he should have paid up for Matt Campbell in the first place, which - to your point - would have been a drawdown, but it would have been a smart one because it would have paid for itself. You all might be really sick of me bringing this up, but if people keep having amnesia about why our hoops got stiffed, I will keep bringing it up. BTW, Clemson and NCSU have gone to the Final Four, why have they been so much better positioned than us? Can VT close that gap? I think it can. They are better-managed. I doubt it is luck or randomness. Yes, we should overweight football, but we can do some of both if football doesn't completely brick it - which they did. A coach made bad decisions and his superior signed off on them. Wake was a screwed call away from making the ACC title game last year. I doubt they had near the football money we spent. Lots of us thought this looked very disorganized from the start. I doesn't look like bad luck - which is more forgivable. It looked really stupid and turned out to be stupid. I don't say that about Fuente. I don't say that about Mike Young. I say this about Pry and Whit. Most of us believe this to be true. Feel free to push back on my calc that about $10 million was squandered. Maybe over 2-3 years? Well, that is $3 million a year that could have elevated the hoops budget. We had some very "left-tail" performance. ** Edited by TDVick at 5/20/2026, 3:47:44 PM

expense of the other programs. They created a "black hole" and then continued to throw money at it, so that it would merely look "charcoal." Often crappier than JMU, Marshall and ODU. Give away the store, back-end loaded contracts. Dumbass contract extensions and raises. About as dumbass as could possibly have been made. Ill-conceived, cobbled-together, incoherent staff from the BEGINNING. Most of us scratched our heads but gave them the the benefit of the doubt - which they didn't deserve. And Mike Young who runs an organized, efficient, shoestring operation and keeps his team within 5 points of UNC and Duke, who have at least twice hoops resources we do, gets left to just come up short. He can't straddle the canyon that Whit dealt him. So sick of that garbage!

I wonder? Maybe we can call Swofford and find out? Or maybe we can call the Poppycock guy? Or the people that hired the Poppycock guy and also scratched their asses and bet on Swofford. Or maybe the fans that wanted to "do things the right way" and stay away from the icky SEC, can try to recall which crackpipe they were smoking.

see tangible progress with football. You get more incremental revenue bang for your buck with football, so there is a logic to "neglecting" hoops for now. To your point, none of this had to happen if the football program and athletic department had been operating competently. Somehow Elon can magically build a better softball park. Somehow NCSU can field a loaded hoops roster. Somehow Clemson can make the final four. But VT was sliding in the opposite direction. If we can field a hoops roster next year that is somewhat comparable to last year, hopefully that will be the worst of the triage from the Whit/Sands era.

or more. Fuente termination fee, OC and DC given idiotic extensions and paying their replacements, plus money to fire Pry. Maybe $15 million plus squandered. What should you do, Sands?

Just like Franklin, no decent coach is going to come how without some ramped up roster money assurances. The people making posts that "Mike Young is just not getting it done" are complete dumbasses. Three years ago, Rice bailed and our top three players were Pedulla, Cattoor and Kidd - and not much else. This past year we had a decent team, but not with top half of ACC money, had a bunch of injuries and were one shot (SMU road game) from making the tourney. Does anyone dispute that he has a lot less roster talent than peer schools like NCSU, Wake and Clemson and definitely less than Duke, UVA, UNC and Louisville? That seems OBVIOUS to me.

dirty. Seems like when VT gets a star like Rice or Neo, they want to be the primary ballhandler. Maybe those guys aren't good fits.

sporting even there is. Kentucky hits a 40 footer to go to OT and win. The same night Vandy rims out a a 60 footer and loses. St Johns fights Duke like rabid dogs then UConn has their miracle. This year has been amazing. The year when UConn slaughtered SDSU wasn't that great, but that was the exception.

deal with the hiring circus all the time. Chesney seems to be in a similar mold. I'd like to find someone who has had success regionally and that thinks there is potential at VT and really wants to be here.

the worst cases of crooked reffing I ever saw. ** Edited by TDVick at 10/19/2025, 9:43:43 AM

Sands a big culprit here. He just seems to dawdle around when it comes to athletics. Granted academic progress has been good, but we get slammed when we post that he is very poor President for sports. How is that not the case?

sports over the past few years, correct? Yet that is exactly what we did. Poorly played. We field more teams than lots of schools with higher overall budgets. That is the headscratcher to me.

Just hitch your wagon to that cozy footprint ACC. No need to worry about the SEC or B10. ND and maybe Texas will join and everything will be fine.

have been some headscratchers with retention and roster management. At first glance, it looks puzzling why a guy that was a contributor for us goes to UNC, where he would presumably be further down the bench. But apparently he loves UNC. I haven't seen a coherent roster strategy for football or basketball the past few years. Now that the rules are getting firmed up, hopefully someone at VT will realistically figure out what their niche is and what their space in the hierarchy is. If we are going to focus on development - which I wish we would, like we used to, then VT needs to carve out some income if players use us for a stepping stone. The schools we should copy are BYU, Boise, K State and Iowa State. Maybe BYU has bigger bucks than I realized. I see schools that competently reload and we do not. VT has a very solid community and following and somehow that is not being leveraged very well, in my opinion.

I wonder how much PT he will get there. He wasn't that highly regarded out of high school. You would think that we could lock in a guy like that for longer if the contract had been written better and more intelligently. Does Whit EVER add any value? Lower tier schools are going to have to write retention clauses and buyouts. Mike Young is good at developing players. Consequently, that should be an edge where VT could create some value and close the gap with better-funded programs. Looks like another opportunity was missed.

If there is some negative surprise in the fall, don't say "no one could have seen it coming!"

You see, Brett.......

tend to be a contrarian and taking UF is the much more "comfortable" position, therefore it is a likely to be incorrect or overpriced as far as the sportsbooks are concerned and the Gators are 1 point favorites. But yeah, Clayton in the last two minutes against Texas Tech was some of the best tourney heroics I've ever seen. Perhaps Mario Chalmers for Kansas versus Memphis comes close. Bill Self has two of the greatest comebacks ever. I'm on Houston. But they have slow down Clayton.

I was on Texas Tech. Add that to my other list of heartbreakers that screwed up my postseason. ILL v UK Miss v MichSt There is a lot of public money and bracket picks on UF. Better to go the other way. UF was way overrepresented in bracket picks - not a good sign. ** Edited by TDVick at 4/6/2025, 6:35:19 AM

The way they strangled Tenn in the first half of the previous game was an eye opener. ** Edited by TDVick at 4/6/2025, 6:31:17 AM

they are with football. Based on what I've read, the Aggies are getting a bit tired of him. If so, the smart move is to jump.

outright as a dog. TXTC and Tenn are favorites. My guess is that Auburn, Duke and Houston cover also.

Quite often you see two 10+ seeds in the second round. Not even close this year. Colorado State was the cream of the P5 crop. It really sucks not having Cinderellas. I have a hard time including Calipari-coached Arkansas as one, but he is the longest shot remaining. ** Edited by TDVick at 3/26/2025, 11:46:45 AM

of an odd mercenary, but there is NO WAY I'm rooting for Michigan over them. Although, I really do like Michigan's coach. He did an amazing job at FAU - should have made the title game. It was a shame that he went to Michigan. They are so douchey and make me want to vomit. You could even say Michigan is the Midwestern blend of Duke/UNC which is just even worse. Loser, computer lab geeks taunting the other team. In real life they'd get slapped around by a middle schooler or senior citizen. ** Edited by TDVick at 3/23/2025, 1:59:17 AM

do pretty well in hoops and can probably take some guys that VT can't. Based on your post, I make the general conclusion that VT has more money available for hoops acquisitions than VCU - at least in Lawal's case. There is no reason that we should be as bad as we are.

Bowen being better than we realized or rather, because his is now riding in a yacht instead of a rowboat being paddled by a blind, idiot? I know that realignment and NIL has thrown a curve at everyone, but I think that if VT were being run properly, we should be able to get a notch above VCU in basketball. We should be able to to pirate the 6th or 7th man off the FSU or Pitt roster, who is usually more talented and athletic than our starters. What is true for VT is somewhat (sadly) true for other ACC teams. There is no reason the hoops should have been this bad this compared to the Big East. There is just a bunch of entitled weak ass management is our league and we are very high on the incompetence list. If VT can't raise more money than VCU or Creighton, I think is is just bad management. ** Edited by TDVick at 3/21/2025, 1:33:36 PM