I'd always have felt we'd be more "at home" in the SEC. But I am in the minority I guess. Our entry to the ACC has impacted our ability to leave. That is all. WRT the ever changing nature of "realignment", I agree with you again. I think most of felt that if the ACC imploded that we'd "have a landing spot" in the SEC or a stout Big XII that included Oklahoma and Texas. That's changed now. I've said on numerous posts earlier that the only LOCK in the ACC for a nice landing spot is UNC. UVa is like a poor man's Stanford, and look where Stanford is right now. Tech is kinda like a poor man's Oregon. And look where Oregon is right now. Clemson and FSU are not locks to be taken by the SEC either. The SEC already has a boatload of those types of schools, and they really don't NEED two more. Now I don't want to be all doom and gloom. Do I think a good many ACC teams will have a good chance at making the P2? Yes. But no one (save UNC) should be resting in it. And the whole thing will be based on the whims of the SEC and B1G brass. Merit won't guarantee a thing. Lastly, the UT/OU to SEC move was a game changer that was far worse IMO for college football than some of this other stuff like NIL, transfer portals, and CFP playoff expansion that we are talking about currently. A unilateral decision by the SEC followed by a unilateral decision by the B1G basically dropped 18 proud programs to second tier status without a single game on the field having anything to say about it. UCLA hasn't won the Pac-10/12 this century. In that same time period, the teams most discussed as being the first left behind by the B1G (UW, UO, Stanford) have won or shared the title 14 times. That, is a problem. Even retched Cal (who the talking heads should drop football or join join the MWC), has had a share of the title once in that time period. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/28/2022, 11:38:17 PM