VT would not have been excited if the ACC invited the 4 newbies that the B12 did - it's why they are part of the B12, not the ACC. The PAC thing just happened, but the B12 offered a landing spot, and they jumped on it. None of the schools in the 12 will get one dime more from them joining - something the teams in the ACC would never do. The ACC is a good conference, had a good contract - right up to the point of the Texas and OU announcement, and then the USCLA and Big contract announcement. It's still a good contract, but I think the salt in the wound was that the B12 negotiated a contract that was comparable to the ACC's (reported, as I haven't seen the fine print). The announcement of the B12 contract was the moment that FSU, and the mag 7 blew their gasket, and all of a sudden became underpaid (in the mag 7's opinion). Now, 1/2 the conference wants to leave, or kick out members, and they are measuring their things against the rest of the conference. The solution was right there in front of you guys, and my first post ever on this board was to discuss the PAC ACC merger. You guys didn't want the teams left over in hateful 8, you didn't want the 4 that were added, and you didn't want those left behind in the PAC. Now there is post after post on this board wanting to poach the B12. I can't make this up, it's what happened. The ACC still has a good conference. It just appears that some have "the thing" envy, and covet thy neighbor's media contract. Again the ACC has a REALLY good conference, just maybe not quite as good as some think. It's better than the B12, I'll admit that straight off, but lose your top two football brands, and you are drinking beer at the truck stop with the B12 guys. Our party is more fun now that Texas is gone, we can get back to playing really good college ball, and let the P2 worry about earning all that money.