fans unless people get creative to fix the problems. And so far I have not seen anything that suggests those fixes will happen. It feels like the wild west in college sports. Even if VT went with the academic college sports model, it will just be a smaller version of the mess we have now, and would probably grow worse over time. So we could be a small fish in a messed up pro model or a big fish in a messed up academic model. There just doesn't seem to be any real leadership trying to figure out what is best for all. Leaders are fighting for more money for their school or conference, and ignoring the product as a whole and the student athletes that should be at the center of any discussion. Right now I would lean to the Academic College Model with the hope that priorities would gradually find their way back to what college sports should be about.

athletic programs associated under the umbrella have allowed more and more elaborate ways to generate revenue and not pay taxes. Even Virginia's own rules allow bonds (loans) to be taken out for all these athletic facilities. So if VT is allowed to have say $1 Billion in debt and Athletic facility borrowing is $100 Million then VT only has $900 million in credit available. Point is that all of this would need to be revamped and refinance in a purist Academic vs Athletic scenario. Then there would be issues like the facilities - it's likely maintenance & support staff, electrical, HVAC and other services are all intertwined. Start to try to separate out health insurance and other benefits as well as pay and it can get complex. Then there would be other details such as ownership of the actual facilities going forward, structuring land leases for Athletic facilities back to VT and/or state. Sure all of this could be done but the split up would be complex and take a lot more time that most might think.

For example, Florida can fund football stadiums, but the Commonwealth of Virginia can't. I'm OK with that restriction in Virginia.

This place has a bunch of intelligent and insightful posters, great questions and comments!

If going pro means we have to sever our academic ties to ACC schools, then VT will say no. VT would absolutely pick the academic relationships above a money grab tied to just football. But if we could have both, then VT would consider trying the pro side (I’m only 60% certain with this guess). Might be that the money and reputation risk always makes us turn down the pro option.

Any academic relationship we have with a school that happens to be in the ACC has nothing to do with athletic conference membership.

And similar for the Big 10 schools. Probably me just trying to connect dots that are not actually connected (like the med school thing with Wake). Thanks for correcting me. Usually it is my wife that catches me talking about things that i don't really know :)

The B1G had the CIC that it sold itself as something bigger than it really was...which is now the Big Ten Academic Alliance. I'm sure there are a few nice things that happen through, but it seems like mostly a way to aggregate research statistics in a meaningless way. Someone doing research at VT can collaborate with someone at Michigan or someone at Duke. A department could enter into some joint effort with Wake or with Northwestern. Athletic conference membership be damned. The joint biomedical program with Wake started in 2003. We weren't voted into the ACC until halfway through 2003. A partnership like that doesn't happen overnight. That was happening completely independent of ACC membership.

I thought part of the interest in this Alliance was revolving around doing this. So I have been expecting UVA to schedule Big Ten and PAC 12 games. We dropped the Liberty games opening up slots. Do you have any insight to what is going on with this Alliance. The last thing I expected UVA to do is run off and schedule the SEC, but little do I know. Here we go doing just this.

what are they going to do if the Pro College Football gets launched? The SEC/ESPN seems bent on making it happen, but will the B1G follow that path? As far as my insight, I heard in 2003 when Virginia Tech was not included in the first ACC Expansion plans that I should not worry because eventually both Virginia Tech and Notre Dame would be fully included in the ACC. I heard that Notre Dame's administration very much wanted to join the ACC back then, but they needed to convince the big donors. Of course, with Bill and Alice Goodwin encouraging everyone, things changed dramatically for Tech's fortunes and the Notre Dame was slowly evolving, but Swofford made a monumental mistake. He gave ND a very easy path in 2020 to the ACC Championship and it backfired. The ND donors took in a big yawn with the regular season matchups except Clemson and said no way, never! Scheduling has been Swofford's biggest mistake as the Commissioner. He listened to FSU, Clemson and even Miami in the early days and he set up a walk in the park for one of them to make the BCS/playoff. In the meantime the SEC and B!G had way better matchups in the regular season. ESPN's talking heads made sure that both would get into the playoffs by saying they have losses because they are all so good. People bought it hook line and sinker. We screamed about it on this board, but no one cared, because we were drown out by the ESPN talking heads and we still are drowned out by them. Ultimately I think ESPN wants the ACC football first schools in the SEC and they hope that Fox grabs a few more from the ACC to set up the NFL model of two major broadcast networks televising Tier 1 college football. All of that said, I think that ESPN underestimated Jim Phillips. The B1G should have grabbed him as the commissioner. Nothing against Kevin Warren, but he is an NFL guy. I could actually see him being the next NFL Commissioner. However, they didn't and Jim Phillips has already stopped the playoff expansion, stopped the ACC from falling apart and seems to have the no divisions coming to the P-5. Those are huge accomplishments in just a few months! So every time I think the Pro College Football is about to win, that guy pulls a rabbit out of his hat. If he wants the ACC to survive in the long run, he needs to do what Boeing and Amazon just did and move the headquarters to the DC area. The Carolina Crowd will hate him for it, but if he pulls that off, the ACC has a chance to survive as a Tier 1 program. Otherwise, I think the ACC schools will start seeing their successful coaches leave due to doubling or even tripling of their salary. I don't want this, but it is very possible that is where we are headed unfortunately. If that's the case, I want Virginia Tech and Virginia where they can thrive both academically and athletically, if that even exist in the future. What do you think?

players’ “salaries”. If players start getting paid, that will be a huge new expense.

Dow 30 company to now be headquartered in DC, or even in surrounding areas. Big organizations need a political presence...they obviously do not have to have a headquarters there. If one works in a specific area they see the successes of "clients" that use their services and the failures of the ones that don't, but one's bias towards what they do - true for everyone in all occupations - tends to block out the successes of non-clients that don't use one's services.

as if you'll be running into Senators at Target or Starbucks all the time or something.

even more importantly, Congressional staff members.

even if they live in DC? You can get from Charlotte to DC fairly regularly for drinks and dinner. Or you can have HQ in Timbuktu and still have a lobbyist type or 2 who work for the ACC and live in DC.

except the physical location of the headquarters is not a "linchpin" of what will make or break the ACC. It can succeed, or fail, in any of the proposed locations.

that when the decision is finally made and it is not D.C. that you will be able to let go of your Don Quixote obsession with the ACC headquarters being in D.C.. The decisions affecting universities the most in the future, just like in the past, are largely driven in the state capitals around the nation. As far as surviving as a Tier 1 program goes, that will depend on what the higher education landscape looks like going forward. While athletics is an extremely visible piece of the operation, if the university is considered as a business, it is no more than a decent size division representing 10% or less of any given university's budget. I think most business owners would say a 10% division would not drive the decision for the remaining 90% of the organization. If the restructuring of athletics to a pro style model can be accomplished without significant disruption to the remaining 90% of the operation then a school may opt for that, however, I am skeptical that can be accomplished without just blowing up the model and starting anew.

you go back to starting with an insult, withe Don Quixote crap. You might not be able to see it, but you really have a big problem if you treat others like you treat me on post. To bad, we agree with more than we disagree, but you have to put the jab in there and position yourself as though you are better than me. Professional people understand if you disagree, you start with trying to understand better the other person’s position, you don’t have to agree with it, but who knows if you find out more about what the person is really thinking, you will probably find more common ground. It’s up to you though.

took it personally. I felt it was an apt description that you were still tilting at the windmill.

you a name I identified your obsession for what it is. Furthermore, you whine that I am not trying to understand your position when you have avoided the questions asked on multiple occasions to try and understand your position. Moreover, you should probably take your own advice and actually read the responses because my position has been stated clearly from the beginning. Athletics is at best a small piece of the university pie and the policies that truly impact large STATE universities originate at the STATE level much more often than the federal level. Putting a conference headquarters in D.C. with the only real goal being federal government access is a misguided and quixotic idea. If you disagree fine but, if you want anybody to actually consider your argument seriously you're going to have to defend it with points that go well beyond "because I say so."

has evolved into essentially a necessary evil for universities. Having them is not some great boon to the institution overall like many imagine...as you said, it's a fairly small chunk financially...and a largely independent one. While it's a very visible element of the institution, it's really not all that influential where the rubber meets the road academically.

relative to us thriving academically. Similarly, I'm not sure what the B1G "having academics" means in this context.

I heard many "experts" say that they were surprised the B1G didn't hire Phillips.

IMHO, the entire ACC does, even FSU and Clemson which may surprise a few. The Big Ten talks about academic excellence all the time, they would look like hypocrites going the semi-pro route. The Pac-12 also prides itself in academics, so they'll go the same route as the ACC and Big Ten. That leaves the SEC and Big 12 on an island. In the end, you can't have a new football or athletics association with only 16 to 26 schools basically located in one geographic region.

Vanderbilt, Florida, Texas, Texas A&M, and Georgia come to mind. I don't think these are slam dunks for Semi-Pro.

sports and not academics - even though I have 2 degrees from VT. My enjoyment and passion for VT is all around sports. For the most part, I really dont care that much about VT academics as long as they are decent. I dont get wrapped around the axle about VT being 25th or 40th in academic rankings. Nor do I really care what VT's research revenue is - as long as it is decent.

Now, sports on the other hand - I do care ;-)

I'm not going to get a lick smarter or my Tech degree less valuable in any change to our academic reputation. But on Saturday afternoons, I am completely absorbed in if we win or lose. Go Hokies.

I'd wager we're pretty much all here because we get entertainment value out of VT sports. Nothing wrong with liking football with no other purpose in mind. Plenty of people also have a legit interest in VT the academic institution as well. Tying the 2 together is often way overblown.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to VT and the SEC. Why does it need to be an either/or? Why cant VT be a very good academic school in a "pro football college" world, or a very good academic school in the SEC? People that think it is an either or conversation are selling our beloved VT short.

and college Presidents and others have fed it with public sentiments that don't really jibe with reality. If they don't maintain that there's a link there, then how is having sports justified? So they say they're happy to have so-and-so in the conference because of their academics even though the academics of your athletics competitors is a complete nothingburger. B1G puffs its chest out about the CIC for years (also largely a nothingburger) and claims AAU status is a requirement for membership. But the B1G lets Nebraska in and the ACC lets Louisville in...because what matters for athletics is athletics and what matters for academics is academics.

sports (football) are included in "pro" and what the Title IX ramifications are. Too early to tell but I think if the "pro" group is (60) football teams than I think that VT is in it. If the "pro" group is (30) or less football teams than I think that VT is not in it

Their teleconference made this clear. The SEC can decide a full pro model if they want. No one outside the Southeast will watch. Not much interest if they only play themselves im a post season.

too much $$ needed for pro version. and i would like to see us win!

academic and academic

"Academic College Football" happens

If it is only 20 or so go semi-pro, ND will try to hold together the academic side. If the entire B1G, SEC and Clemson, FSU, UNC, USC go semi-pro so will ND. Too much money and identity is attached to football. Sigh...

I think every SEC school except for Vanderbilt will have no second thoughts and join the semi-pro group. If Vandy drops out, the SEC goes after an ACC school like FSU, Clemson or Virginia Tech to get an even number. IMHO, I don't think Virginia Tech would pick the semi-pro option over the academic option unless a great majority of the P-5 schools go semi-pro. Then Tech will be like Notre Dame and reluctantly go the semi-pro route for survival. I personally would like to see Tech go the academic route, just like you and most Notre Dame fans would like your school to do. FSU and Clemson have made strives in improving their academic reputations the past decade and I have my doubts that their Board of Trustees or Visitors would want to go the semi-pro route even if their fan base does. I think the ACC schools have the same feelings about the options as Notre Dame. As for the Big Ten, they pride themselves on academics too. Going the semi-pro model isn't a grand slam for the B1G.

other is what you want it to do.

I think school is all academia. I prefer VT to be safe. SEC is sexy choice but BIG makes sense for what college is about.

What do you think and what do the school leaders think if that happens? Do we pursue Tier 1 with unlimited scholarships and coaches?

I'm not sure how anyone thinks either of those is good for the sport.

Will be ugly chain of events.

I honestly think we measure what other schools are doing. Probably already have. I think we will be in same conference as Uva and Unc. If wrong in SEC and State goes with us. I really think these schools try save the ACC. I do not how though.

I cannot see VT going all out non limit scholies.

we do what Uva (and UNC) do.
if it is a 20-30 pro style thing- we are definitely out, and should be.