connection to UNC saying YES to the SEC (over the B1G). After UNC (and UVa) accept, there would be no leverage to get the other two (VT and NCSU) in. Two more votes, yes. But that won't nearly be enough. And the comparison to the 2003 ACC expansion has a number of pitfalls to it. 1. Different era, different rubric. 2. The in-state pressure dynamic is different. Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had no connection to VA. 3. And yes, the ACC did go back eventually for Pitt and SU, but the whole thing was handled poorly and was a mistake if you asked me. Leaving brands behind and telling them "we'll come back for you" only hurts the brands left behind, and further, hurts the brand of the conference taking them later. And that's exactly what happened. I have said here many times that the ACC made a mistake by not going all-in on absorbing all the Big East football schools at once. 4. A better (or at least more modern) comparison is the B1G coming back for UO and UW. Let's face it, the B1G wanted them all along. But they waited for Colorado and others to jump to the BXII. And then they swooped in to get them on a discount. Very shrewd. But they didn't leave them twist in the wind either (and I think there was a backroom deal between the B1G, UO and UW for it to happen that way--that's why UO and UW were quite silent when CU and UA were looking to leave for the BXII and why UO and UW seemed to have no interest in joining the ACC in a West Coast cohort). ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/5/2024, 8:28:59 PM