time" college athletics needs to follow the Gordon Gecko business model. If VT makes a business decision that will benefit the local businesses, then great. However, I get that VT shouldn't be willing to sacrifice its interests in order to satisfy the local businesses. Particularly if it is assumed the local businesses would look out for their interests first before VT's interests if the roles were ever reversed. If VT earns normally $2M for a home game and it has the opportunity to earn $10M playing in Charlotte, then even the local businesses probably would have difficulty saying they wouldn't make the same decision if they were in VT's shoes. The other piece to this puzzle is the local politics and what kind of working relationship VT wants to have/maintain with the local community. If that is important to VT and VT is only earning $5M playing in Charlotte, then it may be willing to sacrifice the extra $3M in order to maintain a positive relationship with the local community. Particularly if issues/scandals have come up involving VT in some way which could negatively impact the relationship. My biggest objection to the decision is it is unlikely VT will have the same level of home field advantage in Charlotte that it does in Lane. You could even include the home field that VT had at FedEx when it played USC and Boise State too. For some reason I think a lot of Wisky fans will end up traveling to the game. More so than who would normally attend the game at Lane, so VT probably will be looking at a 70-30 or even 60-40 split. I guess there is even the possibility it may be closer to a 50-50 split give off a similar vibe as when VT played 'Bama in Hotlanta or SC last year. Plus, it doesn't look good that Wisky didn't move its home game too. A double neutral site series gives off a completely different vibe than a "home-home series" where only 1 team moves its game. Heck a home-home plus an extra neutral site game would have come across as being better.