The_VT_Rock

That means initially, they wouldn't have $700 million in revenue, so teams could go straight in at the start.

Using B10 as an example, if a bill gets passed that limits teams to 19, why couldn't the Big 10 separate itself into 2 entities/conferences. Then, they could expand up to 38 (but realistically, they may expand to 2 - 12-team conferences). I am not sure if they would have the conferences divided evenly, geography, or just big powers in one. Then, as part of the bill allows, they could merge their TV conference monies between the 2 conferences. You could have OSU in one and Michigan in the other, but still have the cross-over Big Game. They could also put the big boys in one, get more money, but try to get the 2nd conference as much as they are making now. If that is the case, then the 2 conferences could promote/relegate as in soccer between the two conferences (this may allow the 2nd conference to make as much as they are making now in case one of the big boys get dropped down for a year or two).

If they still are thinking of separating - you have people that like non-SEC/B10 schools that watch because it still may affect their own team (or it is a good match-up). If they separate more, I see some people not watching as much, though they will still be on almost every single bar/restaurant. Of course, I think now separating isn't an option for either of them. If it was, I think more teams are necessary - also, if they aren't getting the money they should be getting even at this point, there is still more wiggle room.

Do they really don't want to add that many more? I doubt that - I see both wanting to add a few more, but that is more a hunch than anything concrete. Another issue is the CFP play-off size - I don't see either expanding until the CFP goes past 12. I think the biggest issue is that they wanted to wait for these TV deals to get closer to expire to open up the bidding for everyone. If this happened 2-3 years down the road, I could see both deciding to just go to 24 - esp if the play-off would go to 24. Then, they could just send it out for bidding w/ 24 teams each, even though SEC goes to 2034. As mentioned before, the TV/streaming entities still have to shoot out money to NFL, etc at this time. This came up because I was trying to decide why the SEC doesn't just go 8 for VT, UVA, UNC, NC St, FSU, Clemson, Kansas, & ? - Okl St or WVU (I initially had Miami or Duke, but decided to give them to B10). Big Ten decides on GT, Duke, Miami, ND (I think if both go to 24, ND finally decides to join since their choices for scheduling would be slim), Stanford, & Utah/Cal?

Possible 5-team pods and switching other pods each season, but even then, they may just have one rival and rotate the other 9 each season do you play every one in the conference more often.

We are playing the If game - If VT has a chance to go to a P2 shortly, do we have an inkling of how VT would cover the $147 million (now)? Do they go to court again and work to lower the mark, do the recent $$$ given to VT pay the bulk, does ESPN cover some of the costs or make an agreement with the leftovers of the ACC (if a decent amount of teams move), or they are allowed to pay over time? The ESPN question would be interesting - ESPN could agree to pay the leftovers a lower 1/3 rate through 2036 (lower 1/3 meaning what was the average of the lower 1/3 that was distribute due to their new viewership and other rules) and agree to pay up to a certain number of new teams, or get the payouts upfront, but ESPN cancels the remainder of the contract. This could offset having to pay that amount - especially for the ones going to the SEC since they stay under the ESPN umbrella.

These sources are probably decent donors at some schools, but just because they are donors doesn't mean they have 100% knowledge, maybe strong rumors, ut those people aren't the decision-makers. Thus, those donors are maybe correct here ir there, ir maybe what they heard was true, but things change in a heartbeat.

Based on the current push if Congress/President sign off... One other thing - if school X wants to join Big Ten, but they want to join in 2028, but the agreement is signed before the bill goes in effect, does the date of the signing beat the signing of the bill, or does the agreement not exist in the eyes of Congress since they wouldn't be joining until 2028 after the bill could perhaps be signed?

Not calling it a super-league, but what if a new conference is branded the Big Ten 2.0 and created? All of the teams in the current Big Ten drop out, join this new league, and add teams then since the new league hasn't generated $700 million in revenue. You could see SEC 2.0 as well. Or, this new league could cherry-pick. If that is the case, the P4 would have to wait until I assume they aren't receiving $700 million/yr so then they could add teams.

It doesn't stop private equity in getting schools together in a new conference - exactly what Cody Campbell wanted.

It passed the committee 19-9. Question: What if the NFL "creates" a minor-league that come from a certain number of college football teams that could be led not by the college (i.e. Hokie Ventures), and they pull those teams under their anti-trust and then the NFL could get the TV/broadcast revenue for those teams so it would secure keeping their pipeline? Maybe the NBA does the same? WNBA?

Either/Both the state of Indiana and/or Ohio press charges for underage gambling - probably can include his brother-in-law in Ohio.

Since the decision on the NCAA appeal would be heard in February, anything TT does should be heard in Feb/Mar - and by that time, the NCAA "could" win, and then whoever TT would go after would be within their right. I know that is not the case since a magical injunction would appear out of no where. However, what about the away games Texas Tech plays outside of Texas - those teams/states have their own laws and can prohibit TT from playing I would think. To be honest, it sounds like as long as you have a judge that is in your favor, you can pretty much say anything and get your way.

I will say he may have bet a lot of money over the time, but it appears they were little amounts here and there. My biggest issue is the billionaire that wants to "save" college sports is pushing for this guy to be on the team - he also wants to limit transfers to 1 (Sorsby is a 2-time transfer). Maybe in a reverse psychology way, Cody Campbell is trying to show how much you are allowed to get away with to force congress to push his bill through - who knows. People talk about Nick Saban spear-heading this - just think that he succeeded by not always playing by the rules (maybe SEC bag-money rules). That senate hearing was horrible - people talking about random stuff not inside the bill and hardly anyone there had counter-arguments. Do I want Congress to rule on college football? No. Do I want the NCAA to lead the way? Not really. Do I think the SEC, Big 10, ACC, and Big 12 should make a board who governs this new era - maybe, but only if they actually have power and not continue to have lawsuits. Collective bargaining? I know Andy and a few other media have been pushing - I just think there are too many hurdles - almost have to have Congress rule the players to be maybe independent contractors that can collective bargain and side-step whether they are employees...not sure about that. Do I think these local judges that are making these rulings for the local teams/players should be investigated? Yep.

The Big XII can play the same thing of by the time it is decided in court, it is too late (the same thing probably happens when the NCAA appeal and the decision is decided after the 2026 season). The fact he did it while playing at another Big XII school (Cincy) seems to mean more to Big XII than the NCAA.

Trying to move to Charlottesville hoping to play in week 0 still.

Could you see down the road that the Hokie Ventures Football Club is having a match against Clemson's version? Thus, they are separate from the university, but still representing the university so it isn't under the college rules?

Oh boy - let's talk to people that let it get this bad to try to fix things or rambles or whatever. In other words, a normal Congress Hearing.

Especially the most recent one...

This time, with just one team (Duke BBall). I know these are non-conference games, but don't think we may see some week 0 match-ups in football with the Netflix College Opener pitting 2 top teams and paying them a lot of money for NIL. As mentioned here and there and everywhere, I think VT's main goal is to get in the P2, but does the P2 exits in 20 years, or do schools that feel that are big enough just go the ND route and work on their own carrier deals as independents - maybe striking deals with like schools for their non-rev sports to ease scheduling? Funny thing is I can see this happening, but 20-30 years after that, go back to conferences because while I follow VT, I do still watch a decent amount of games because there is some investment on how it affects VT or that they are playing for the same goal (of course, that has waned some since VT hasn't been in any position to do anything once there are 4 or so games to go). If there is a 24 or whatever number superleague of independents, does that still carry enough weight to keep that kind of money flowing? I know if that happens and VT isn't in the top league, I might take a peak at it, but I am definitely not going out of my way to watch it since I will be focusing on whatever league(s) VT is in. Are there enough casual/gambling fans to keep that freight train going with those type of $$$ contracts once you drop so many college football teams?

If UVA and VT were to join P2 conferences - would you rather see both in one conference, or would you rather see them in different conferences? I am starting to think it may be better to have them in separate conferences - as a state, it would basically hedge your bets - both would be in good places and just in case there is one issue on a conference, you at least have one school in the other. It would also make it easy with scheduling since you could fill in an auto OOC opponent. The only problem is if UNC and UVA are in separate conferences and would UVA push to always play UNC no matter what (which could cost the VT game - though I could see that if this happens, there could be a state law that the two schools would have to play each other). ** Edited by The_VT_Rock at 3/23/2026, 11:33:51 AM

Admit at halftime that you thought your opponent was going to be a cakewalk? That is the #1 job when playing as a 1 vs a 16.

How would you feel (for VT fans) if VT lost to UVA but made a deep run in the play-offs (you can include winning the national championship)? Basically, do what OSU did w/ losing to Michigan and winning it all? I think years ago, that would somehow feel frowned upon - nowadays, I am not sure since the play-offs are taking over the sport.

If the 24-team play-off gets legs, would you see teams pushing their rivalries up in the schedule - i.e. would you see OSU-Michigan maybe middle of the season or toward the beginning instead of the last regular season weekend? If 24 shows up, then conf championships are out, so then if either OSU and/or Michigan feel secure with their seeding, could you see those teams sit players in their regular season games even if it is against their rivals to give some players rest for the play-offs? I would think the only way to fix that is to move up the rivalry game. It was OOC at the time, but the UVA-VT game early in '99 - I didn't see too much of an issue with it. I doubt I would want it as the 1st game. Plus, you could then stagger some of these rivalry games throughout the season instead of most happening at the end.

Loses today to UMass in 1st rd of tourney. Let's see how the committee looks at someone not playing anybody (probably through no fault of their own). I saw a clip from last Saturday w/ Greenberg, Bilas, etc where they had 6 teams. for 4 spots. Greenberg 1st puts Miami (OH) in - why? Because they are undefeated in the regular season. Yet in that same breath, they put Auburn in and say well, they would have 16 losses, but they played hard teams. That reeked of politician talk (talking out both sides of your mouth). If one of them spoke up and said, "I value competition, so if you don't play anyone inside the top 125, you shouldn't be in - that is why I am putting Auburn in." Or, have one say, "I am putting Miami (OH) in because they won, and I am keeping Auburn out because they lost too many games." Sadly, I think this represents what happens in the committee, so then people are wondering why certain teams got in because all of the criteria doesn't match up. I think they should combine like the BCS did - 50% is the committee ranking the at-large teams and 50% based on certain metric rankings (by the way, the same should be for the college football play-off).

Triad channel stuck on CW screen.

What if the Whit Babcock does his presentation one year earlier and the BoV approves it? How does the 2025 campaign go - does the team improve enough to push VT to a winning record and Pry stays as coach? Does the influx still give VT to go after a bigger coach? Or does Pry get more experienced coordinator? Or does the same thing happen and Franklin is still our coach? Or fill in your own blank... ** Edited by The_VT_Rock at 2/19/2026, 1:57:15 PM

We use to always say team X needed to win one or two in their conference tourneys. I think the committee has a firm grasp of who they have in before the major conf tourneys. I think the only time they adjust is if team X makes it to the final or wins the whole thing...and I think even making it to the final doesn't affect it if they feel team X is on the outside looking in before the conf tourney.

I wouldn't mind VT being with X other top ACC schools along with X top Big 12 schools as long as not many big brands go to the P2. I put that in about the P2 since it seemed like a sticking point to the BOV when searching for coaches. I think it is interesting that VT plus other schools are either getting help from certain donors or pledges to help the athletics department. My real question is - how long does this money come in to a school and donors don't see the results and those donors dry up on the money being given - where does that tipping point end a school's run at one of the top brands - or do those donors continue to give hoping for the best? ** Edited by The_VT_Rock at 2/4/2026, 5:11:25 PM

Taking VT for example, they pledge money through 2029 - is that a trial run to see the following: How does football improve with the money and new coaching? If it does improve, is it worth the money spent and can VT maintain that level or improve? Do they improve and place a value on the team where they can get in the P2? If it doesn't improve, do teams that have pushed money like VT decide this is sustainable without making the P2? Do they decide we can't keep up and decide how to handle the team then? Or, does college football succeed enough where it keeps the status quo of today and everyone can still profit? I don't think major changes happen until you get to 2029ish and then each university will decide what to do then after they have seen all of this money come in and go out to coaches/players to see if it is worth it to try to stay a major college football program with limited resources by not being in the P2. I think B10/SEC add - I don't have a good feeling of how many each would add. I don't see contracting - the only way the P2 contracts is if they become a P1 with both contracting and adding. I can see both add to get to 20 each. I believe if that is the case, I could see the top remaining brands from the ACC/B12 combine to create a new league (I think creating a new league allows them to contract with not as many lawsuits - I could be way wrong with that assumption). I think if each P2 goes to 24, I could see VT in that mix. In all honesty, to cover most major brands and teams just under that, I would like to see each go 28 - each P2 conference has 4 divisions of 7 teams - 6 divisional opponents, 1 team each from the other 3, and split other games with the other conferences or allow non-P2 games. Then you would just have an NFL play-off model.

Checking the Weather Channel app, it shows light snow starting at 1PM - so by the game ends and the guys get out of there, you are looking at 5PM to get out of there... To be honest, they should have tip off at 10AM (then Wake-Duke at 12) - better chance of getting everyone back in Bburg before the fun begins...

Unnamed sources from people that are still at Penn State saying there is a problem after the fact the season imploded. I bet it was tough times after that loss. Who's to blame? Who knows at this point. We have heard the AD and Franklin weren't fans of each other, and we don't know if that is a fact or not, though we did see those cookies out there after BYU's coach stayed. Do these same things come out if Franklin gets them back to the play-off this season and at least makes the national championship? Interesting that Franklin is talked down in trying to get staff and players to VT, but Matt Campbell is seen as a breath of fresh air (we shall see if he is enjoyed after a couple of seasons - but it seems odd that so many ISU coaches/players are at Penn State - I'm sure Campbell didn't ask those players/coaches to join. This is one of those stories that come out after the fact...it just amazes me how the story changes after a few wins or losses (looking at Ryan Day). I am not saying this is true or it isn't true - am I surprised? Not really, but I would be way more surprised if that article mentioned Franklin in a very good light and just hoping for the best w/ Campbell aboard since he wasn't their 1st choice (and if he was and turned them down initially, that also doesn't look good w/ Penn State thinking how high up on the college football hierarchy they think they are).

He is 8-10 feet beyond the 3 pt line...is the D just pushing him out or is he just not pushing the issue where he could catch and shoot or get the D on their heels?

He knew he was going to get hit, so that last step he slowed up to make sure he did...which I think if you purposely put yourself into harm's way, there should be no flagrant. I have watched enough basketball games lately to say let's get the refs away from the review monitor as much as possible. One way is to look to upgrade a foul to fragrant - let's stop doing this so we don't see there and watch the refs watch the game on a monitor they are suppose to ref.

Not listening to the TV announcers mention 33, 49.5, flu...etc over and over again.

I would have taken a throw to half-court - get the ball tipped around - even if SMU gets it, they have to take time to get composed and shoot the ball - would have killed most of that clock (yea, not the greatest play, but much better than that). Or better yet, call a time-out.