I actually think Virginia Tech has more value than most folks seem to, for the exact same reason I think UNC has (to an even greater extent) value - they are both the big football brand (yes, of course, UNC is a bigger basketball brand, but I would also consider them the biggest college football brand in the state of North Carolina) in a high-population, high-wealth state where neither the SEC nor the Big 10 currently has a foothold. You absolutely cannot say that in the context of BOTH P2 conferences about any other legitimate expansion candidate. First, let's address UVA. UVA football has been a non-starter for the better part of 25 years. Frankly, it's an absolutely embarrassing operation, even more so than what's been going on with VT. Expansion is about media money, and media money is about football - nobody cares about or watches UVA football. There are no fans. They're a joke. If you search "UVA football" on YouTube, the first think you find will be a 20 minute video of Colin Cowherd calling the UVA football program sissies that wear make-up to games. You are not a valuable expansion candidate with a football program like UVA's, full stop. Any other consideration (basketball, olympic sports, academics, rich alumni, "flagship school," etc.) is slop for uninformed rubes to gobble up. Would, maybe, the Big 10 consider adding them? Maybe, if they wanted to expand into Virginia, but they would consider Virginia Tech first if VT was available. Zero doubt. I don't care how you bake the cupcake, there is absolutely zero circumstance where UVA is getting into the P2 to the exclusion of VT. If you believe otherwise, you're completely ignoring everything that has transpired in the past five years. Now, let's address the rest of the group you usually see mentioned (i.e., FSU, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech) The SEC already has football programs in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina - while the Big 10 may be interested, I'm highly skeptical that the SEC would covet the addition of FSU, Clemson, GT, or Miami. People have to stop thinking about this in terms of "college athletics" and start thinking about it in terms of "professional football league for television," because that's where the money is coming from, and that's what's driving expansion decisions. The SEC propaganda machine is currently operating 24/7 at full tilt; you hear all day, every day, from the most influential media voice in sports, that the SEC is stronger than all other leagues, and that it "just means more." Whether or not that's true, the casual viewer, never mind the SEC fan, is going to prioritize watching SEC conference games either way, so, if they're going to expand, why would they stay in the same pool when they could expand their existing footprint? Why would they cannibalize their existing brands? In the year of our Lord 2025, would the MLB, the NFL, the NBA, or even the NHL do that? No. HELL no, they wouldn't. It wouldn't make sense, either for the conference, or, more importantly, for Disney/ESPN. If anybody will be looking to add those programs, it will almost certainly be the Big 10 and the FOX/CBS/NBC media axis. Are there some outliers to my analysis? Sure, I guess. The SEC added Texas. But Texas was a package deal to add Oklahoma, and Texas is, well, Texas. It's the most valuable brand in college football in terms of sheer dollars, even more so than Notre Dame. I honestly couldn't tell you why the Big 10 added UCLA, but I assume it's because USC insisted. USC is a brand on-par with Texas and Notre Dame; besides ND, there's no remaining non-P2 affiliated schools I can think of with that kind of brand power. You do what you have to do to get them on board. Unless USC just flat-out refused to come without UCLA for whatever reason, I have to imagine the "travel partner" addition to keep the membership number even would have been Oregon. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/29/2025, 12:20:18 PM ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/29/2025, 12:29:06 PM