that doesn't know anything about VT athletics and its history. It's a pretty tired cliche to dismiss any opinion that differs from yours as the uninformed musings of a child. I had to set someone straight on Friday about my VT bona fides, and I'm not typing all that out again. You can rest assured that I am well over 40 years old, I have followed VT football basically all my life, half of which when they were nothing but a regional power where you could buy tickets at the gate, and that I am on the level when it comes to the history of VT athletics. I understand how/why VT joined the ACC, and, clearly, it was the best move for VT at the time. The ACC was the most lucrative college conference in the country then. I've also never made any argument that the Big East or the Atlantic-10 was better for VT sports. The Big East was unstable and had other problems. The A10 was a real disaster; I still shutter when I think of having to watch VT play LaSalle. What I'm saying is that, right now, today, the net-negatives are starting to pile up so deep that it's becoming clear that VT in the ACC has, OVERALL, been bad for VT. I really hope VT leadership recognizes this, and makes it out into a better situation, because the VT-ACC era is not going to be remembered as some golden age, like some of you on here think it will. It's going to be looked at as initially a good partnership that became a major calamity. Let's break it down - VT hasn't sniffed an ACC championship since 2016, and it was 2011 before that. They never made it to the same echelon of success they did while in the Big East Football Conference. With the exception of Fuente's first season, they've now basically been a complete non-factor in the conference for a decade and nationally for well over a decade. They're stuck in a conference made up almost entirely of relatively small-enrollment schools that are primarily focused on basketball, with schools in Texas and California that don't draw TV eyes for anything, let alone football. The conference has what is, by all accounts, a terrible media rights deal that is locked in until 2036, 5 years longer than every other major conference, who will all get to renegotiate in 2031. And, on top of all that, they're about to get even less money, because, to get FSU and Clemson to stay on for another 10 years, the conference is going to start distributing media rights money based upon broadcast viewership. I don't know if either of you noticed, but VT hasn't been playing on network TV, ESPN, or ESPN2 much in the past 5 years, so I really don't think that's going to help VT's bottom line. They also will now play Notre Dame even less than they were before, because ESPN apparently only wants to schedule Notre Dame vs. FSU, Miami, and Clemson. And, FSU and Clemson (probably Miami too, at least they appear to have some semblance of self-interest) are just going to leave the conference as soon as they can anyway, which is going to trigger a panicked mass exit by any other schools that can. So, you all can sit around all day and say, "well, they could be OSU or WSU," but they're not. They've never been in that position, but they're sure going to be in 2036 (or sooner) when the football brands all leave the ACC, which is 100%, zero uncertainty, definitely going to happen. No serious football brand will ever sign another GOR to the ACC after everything that has transpired in the last decade and the clear incompetence demonstrated by the conference administration. Yes, VT had great success when they first entered the conference, but that's been 20 years ago now. 20 years ago, nobody was saying VT couldn't compete with the big boys, or that the ACC was a second rate joke conference. All that negativity and corresponding financial difficulty is thanks to 20 years of bad decisions and laurel resting, both by the folks at VT and the ACC. So, my opinion and my point is, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, VIEWED NOW, TODAY, IN CONTEXT - the ACC is looking more and more like a net negative for VT.