I did not mention VT at all in my post. So if you focus solely on VT, well that is a different thing all together. This was a response to a wishful thinking B12 position post. So beginning again on the topic of what this does to VT, ok I will play. As long as Miami, FSU and Clemson are in the league, I believe it correct to say that those 3 will get most of the ND games. Why? because it is certainly anticipated that those games will draw more than any other ACC teams. I agree it is not good for VT although I believe unequal revenue sharing will increase more than those 3 teams. The problem then will be how the ACC takes care of the Wakes and the BC types. For sure VT, NCSU etc will be the schools that replace Clemson, FSU and Miami on the weaker sisters schedules. I see that coming but there is absolutely nothing VT can really do about it. That is one reason I want to see those 3, or at least FSU and Miami gone. You want to see VT promoted as a "brand" team and seen in the better time slots and channels. So do I but that is not happening in the ACC as long as the 3 are sucking up the oxygen. But it would be the same anywhere else under current conditions. And that is still at the heart of what you expect somebody to do for VT. If not Pry, then Whit, If not Whit then Dr. Sands. But that idea still assumes that VT has some brand power, or that any conference will help build up VT. I do not believe we do. I hate it too but IIWII. And one more point, several years back I opined that UNC would be seen as more desirable, like a FSU/Miami/Clemson than VT would. That has shown to be correct. If you think that national brand, the "U" image is not a big seller to a national TV audience, then I don't know what to say. Big media is banking on what they will get out of teams like Miami and UNC. It isn't game day excitement and not even necessarily a high number of wins. It is someone who can bring their own money and a name that is easy to sell.