1) The maximum amount of revenue share for schools will be calculated every year, I'm sure based upon some type of CPI-type formula. For this upcoming year, it's 22 million dollars. NIL will still be a thing, but payors and payees will have to demonstrate the deal is for fair market value, and all NIL deals over a certain amount (I think $500) will be audited for FMV compliance by Deloitte, a giant national accounting firm. So, NIL ain't going to be what it is now - completely unfettered pay for play. Collectives aren't going to be able to cut anymore $2 million dollar checks to QB transfers, unless they can demonstrate that the $2 million is FMV based upon the QB's calculated NIL value and whatever service they're providing in return for the money. So, presumably, the majority of pay for football players is now going to come directly from the schools, who have to find that money themselves. Again, do you own research - it's well documented that the majority of FBS schools have just come out and said they won't be able to distribute up to the cap, because they won't have it. Successful programs require good players on their rosters. Let's make this real simple - if team A distributes a payroll of $100, and team B distributes a payroll of $40, which team do you think will be able to attract the better players? Or, look at it through this lens: if company A offers you a $300,000.00 salary to do a job, and company B offers you a $100,000.00 salary to do the exact same job, which company are YOU going to work for? 2) I really don't think playing SMU in Texas twice a decade is going to help VT recruit Texas, and, that notwithstanding, you should ask everyone on this board how they feel about #TX2VT. Given recent history, I doubt you'll get many warm and fuzzies when it comes to the idea of Texas as a recruiting pipeline for VT. And, and this is exactly my point about both SMU and the ACC - SMU playing in the ACCCG and getting into the playoff was not covered like it was any kind of boon for the ACC. No, to the contrary - the media spin was "the ACC sucks so bad that SMU got to the championship in its first year" and then "clearly, SMU didn't deserve to be in the CFP, because they pissed down their legs in Happy Valley." SMU adds NOTHING. Adding SMU to the ACC was like adding capers to a really sad little half-melted ice cream sundae. 3) I'm sure they'll take calls from transfer portal guys, but the state of California is never going to be a recruiting focus for VT, ever. So, again, who cares? 4) Yes, of course, VT has never had billion dollar football complexes with lazy rivers and waterfalls. But, VT has also never had to directly pay players via revenue sharing either. That's a major, major change that's coming this fall, and you're just acting like, meh, "Ohio State has always had more money." That's true, but now schools have a capped amount they have to directly pay players with, and NIL contracts have to prove FMV. That's a MAJOR change - it's daylight and dark when compared to how things have been run since NIL arrived. 5) I'm not arguing that the ACC is better than the B12. If you want to have that argument, then it won't last long, because I don't think the ACC is a better football conference than the B12. 6) I think, at least definitely outside the SEC and B10, we are going to ultimately see a paradigm where individual schools negotiate the media rights for their own home football (and maybe basketball) games, and conference affiliation only exists for scheduling purposes and 2nd and 3rd tier media rights negotiations. If so, that's going to be a major game changer.