Not all sports, not that you won 30 years ago, not how many National Championships in tidily winks you won. It's about the money you bring in for football, which is about TV ratings and to some degree how many tickets you sell. That's where the money is! Eventually I think it will be about the basketball money if they break off from paying the NCAA, but still include the other D1 Conferences, but not now. It is about how many college football fans you get to watch on TV or come to the game. I used to want to be in the B1G as much as I did the SEC if the ACC can catch up in money, no more. They are going to NFL towns that don't watch on Saturday, they watch on Sunday. Yes you have a big population that watches on "Sunday". So unless the SEC becomes dumb and tries to keep up instead of going after passionate matchups over market, then "if" the ACC can't catch up, give me 8 to the SEC with Virginia Tech amongst them. SEC/ESPN look at the College Football numbers and control your stupid urges to keep up. Use your brain please, not the primitive urges to keep up in the wrong places. ** Edited by Stech at 8/26/2022, 12:58:11 PM

I was in charge of expansion for the sec or big 10. Goes to show where we sit compared to other like schools. Everyone needs to see this and realize VT is not one of the gems we want it to be. I’m still ok with being* left out of the top 48.

VT, UVA, NC State, Clemson, GT, WVU, Kansas and Oklahoma State or Pitt can go to the SEC, make just as much money? Got it. Also, their metric of AAU being a 10 or a 0 is bit odd. I would think the better metric fit based on their goal of being high on research would be research spend. There are some AAU schools that get way outspent on research by some non-AAU schools. ** Edited by hokieball at 8/25/2022, 4:05:35 PM

Size, location, fit, all would have high scores for the SEC. Same for Clemson, FSU and a few others But for now, it's up to the ACC to see if they make a move before the SEC comes calling.

Notre Dame isn't going to join the ACC. The only thing that would make any sense for the ACC at this point is trying to raid the Big 12 of their best schools that would fit into the ACC like West Virginia, Cincinnati, Kansas and some combination of Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, or Texas Tech. But even doing that wouldn't close the revenue gap with the SEC and B1G, it would just help ensure that the ACC survives in some form as the 3rd "power conference". ** Edited by tarheelblue at 8/25/2022, 7:02:27 PM ** Edited by tarheelblue at 8/25/2022, 7:03:30 PM ** Edited by tarheelblue at 8/25/2022, 7:04:00 PM

WVU (has with Pitt, VT, Syracuse, etc.). Cincinnati (has with Louisville). Plus these two are easy for travel. Then if you want Kansas, that's a basketball add. I'd pair Kansas with Connecticut. Then go to Texas. TCU and Baylor is a long standing rivalry almost as long as UVA-UNC. This would be 6 that would take us to 20. To get anything from the Big XII it has to be before 2025. And they do have a hefty exit fee as well.

Be #3. But most ACC schools now realize #1 or #2 is going to be really important. It shouldn’t stop the ACC from expanding. Get WVU and Cincinnati. Better programs than a lot of ACC schools and guaranteed ticket sales for a lot of struggling mid-Atlantic ACC programs. For the ACC maybe even more than competition and ratings is this…It would be a symbolic move taking 2 schools from the Big 12. If the ACC takes from the Big XII the ACC is above it in the hierarchy. Again, ACC is trying to be the #3 conference, nothing more, nothing less.

OK State and Baylor is probably the best first move in that direction. We should do that move as soon as possible. 16 team conferences is normal now anyway. Those two would fit into the top 1/3 of the ACC, with either one a good candidate to be in the title game. I think they would come. The main thing holding them back (maybe a few years) is that they would want to collect the Texas/OK money first.

be better options than Baylor? At least I always thought the DFW Metro Area and Houston are more populous and easier access than Waco.

It’s about the brand, where BU and TT are better off. Would you rather have Temple or PSU in your conference (scandal aside)?

scandals involving the men's basketball team and football team. But hey if you would rather have them in the ACC than a school that appears to be clean then knock yourself. WRT Penn State, I see their situation is as being different because State College is centrally located in the state when you factor in their fans who live in the neighboring states in all directions. Now if State College was located where Edinboro, Ohiopyle, Waynesboro, or Equinunk are located, then I might view the situation differently. Plus, State College is the flagship of the Penn State System which has a total of 20 campuses.

They are within 2 hours of three major Texas cities, and 2.5 of two more (San Antonio and Houston), similar to Texas A&M. Baylor right next to the interstate between Dallas/Ft Worth and Austin. They have history with OK State. They have a big new stadium, and they mostly fill it, 45K per game. Great basketball. But the main point is to get one team from Texas and pair them with OK State. We need the additional ACCN revenue a Texas team would generate. Also, the four I suggested would give us 4 new states, including one really big one. I'd be OK with Houston or Texas Tech instead. I just think Baylor is the best one. TCU is too small, IMO.

is slightly bigger by 100 or so, but TCU's hosts a bowl game (Armed Forces Bowl). Regardless, I think 45K would still put both schools in the lower half (according to attendance) in the ACC. Now Texas Tech's stadium has a capacity of approximately 60.4K which should put it in the top half. While Oklahoma State has a capacity of approximately 55.5K which should still put them in the top half. If capacity of a football stadium is an important factor, then the ACC should probably target Texas Tech and UT-San Antonio, who play their home games in the Alamodome which has a capacity of approximately 72K and hosts a bowl game (Alamo Bowl).

Utterly arbitrary and meaningless.

Recent football should just be the past 10 years. History would be from 10-20 (maybe 30) years. Past that is ancient history and no longer relevant in the current environment. The way they have it now, too much weight is given to football history that was far in the past. Basketball is also lumped together too much and given too much historical weight. And basketball provides a lot of content and is more valuable than they give credit for. Lastly, if football is driving this (as they state) then the NCAA championships across all sports should not matter much at all. Their sports section has a lot of room for debate. It might not change the top scoring teams too much, but some of the next level teams should shift around.