renovations (think Cassell) because the ACC's contract isn't on par with the SEC's or Big Ten. If VT was in the SEC or Big Ten, then it would see a significant increase in cash flow to help pay for things on the To Do List since donors are either unwilling or unable to cover the tab. VT takes its lumps as middle to bottom of the pack SEC (or Big Ten). The leadership should use that as motivation to ask the coaches what they think they need to be more successful in the conference. Once the leadership has that list, then they start to check them off. Assuming the leadership does its part and the coaches do their part, then eventually fans will start to see the wins on the athletic field improve. It is even possible the wins could come early for some sports. "Success" to me isn't just about wins and loses. It also factors in who those wins and losses are against. For example, VT could go 13-0 in the ACC between now and 2099. However, if VT ends up losing to Big Ten and SEC teams at least 60% of the time, then it really doesn't matter how VT performs in the ACC. I don't expect VT to win majority of its marquee games in order to be successful. If the perception is that VT wins 50% to maybe 60% of its marquee games (both conference and OOC), then I would consider that a success. Keep in mind I do think the Big Ten and SEC are now the measuring stick in DI-FBS football. Also, I do believe there is a good possibility that the P2 will eventually end up doing its own thing. If that is the case, then VT's entire regular season schedule could be against P2 opponents which means VT won't have the luxury of relying on perception anymore. If VT wants to have "success" in a P2 League, then it will need to show it can win more games than lose over a period of time and even against opponent that are viewed as being superior because they are historic blue blood programs.