FSU were the only ones who said, "enough with the BS," and took matters into their own hands. I think too many on here think what they're doing is some kind of affront to VT. It's not. VT has, by and large, pulled its weight and created significant value as a member of the ACC, and most FSU partisans will confirm that they respect VT as a peer. But, the major difference between the two institutions is that FSU isn't just going to just prostrate itself and let ESPN pay Vanderbilt double what they're paying FSU. Everyone talks about FSU being a disruptive partner - I don't see it that way. As things stand now, if you're an ACC member and you want to be taken seriously and play big boy football on the national stage, Wake Forest, Boston College, and the rest of the negative-value, non-competitive ACC members are the disruptive partners. The ACC, in working solely in the interest of the negative-value, non-competitive ACC members is a disruptive partner. Disney/ESPN, in ensuring Vanderbilt will get paid double what you do, is a disruptive partner. I get why VT is fence-sitting here, but, unless anyone here thinks VT football belongs in the same conversation with Wake Forest and SMU, FSU and Clemson are acting in VT's interests as well.