invite WVU, Cincy, or UCF. Regionally, it's just common sense. KU having a conference foe in West Virginia, Ohio, and Florida is nuts when you look at a map. Even today, there are many fans in the ACC that have this view that they are superior than all of the B12 schools, except for maybe the PAC schools that have joined recently. You can make an argument one way or the other on a lot of different metrics, but one of the biggest problems with your regional argument is your time slots, fan support, and viewership. The B12's strength today, comes from the bottom of the conference, not the top. It is filled with schools with very good athletic programs that were consistently pass over by the PAC and ACC. Except for the PAC additions, the core of the B12 is passionately committed to the B12, and what they are - not what they think they are. If you want regionality, UConn, UMass, Old Dominion, Liberty, East Carolina, ASU, Marshal, and some others make more sense, but once again, the ACC is too "good" for them. Please don't take this as what I think the ACC should do, or that I think they are below the B12 in any way, it's just the sudden argument for regionality and current B12 members to be in the ACC is too late. Did you advocate for Cincy before the PAC imploded? Or before the B12 was given a media deal on par with the ACC? If VT gets an invite to the Big 10, will you turn it down because it's not regional? The precedent has been set in the ACC for uneven revenue. Cincy becomes a full member when the new contract kicks in next year. Would VT or UNC dilute their payouts to include those schools for common sense or regionality? It looks like the ACC is going to lose their top two football schools - like the PAC, and like the B12. Geography in the middle of the country is one of the reasons the B12 exists today, as they could add teams from the East and the West. Who would have thought that the ACC and PAC would be at a disadvantage with regional conferences? I didn't see that 3 years ago, but here we are.