Around 2031. Value in UConn, Kansas, or Arizona basketball. Utah, ASU, Colorado to round things out and be a behemoth on a conference.

None of those schools move the needle in football relative to current ACC composition.

After VT series with ND in 26 and 27 that is it for the Hokies. (previous games in 34 and 35.. gone) Same for teams like Wake, Cuse Louisville, etc.

Less money, less TV exposure, locked in until 2036. The ACC can't implode soon enough. Overall, this conference has been an absolute disaster for VT.

is/was a disaster. Compared to our previous affiliations, it hasn't been all that bad. If you think VT can or will be invited to join a P2, then perhaps that depiction is appropriate. Since I don't think VT will ever be invited to join a P2 (it is, apparently, by invitation only), I don't think VT in the ACC is as disastrous as you apparently believe. VT just needs to take care of itself, and improve themselves in several areas. Whether we ever get a invite to a P2, is out of VT's control.

the SEC and the BIG, particularly as presently configured, would offer VT a much better option financially. However, to say that overall the ACC has been an absolute disaster for VT is a questionable statement, at best. No place VT has been prior to the ACC was better for them than the ACC. The BE was a joke with Tranghese and the little basketball privates when it could have been really good with proper leadership. The A-10 doesn't even qualify. The Metro was decent, even for no football, until they let the Ville and Dinner Crumb run things behind the scene and prior to that you go all the way back to the old SoCon.

to some on here.😉🙄😁

that doesn't know anything about VT athletics and its history. It's a pretty tired cliche to dismiss any opinion that differs from yours as the uninformed musings of a child. I had to set someone straight on Friday about my VT bona fides, and I'm not typing all that out again. You can rest assured that I am well over 40 years old, I have followed VT football basically all my life, half of which when they were nothing but a regional power where you could buy tickets at the gate, and that I am on the level when it comes to the history of VT athletics. I understand how/why VT joined the ACC, and, clearly, it was the best move for VT at the time. The ACC was the most lucrative college conference in the country then. I've also never made any argument that the Big East or the Atlantic-10 was better for VT sports. The Big East was unstable and had other problems. The A10 was a real disaster; I still shutter when I think of having to watch VT play LaSalle. What I'm saying is that, right now, today, the net-negatives are starting to pile up so deep that it's becoming clear that VT in the ACC has, OVERALL, been bad for VT. I really hope VT leadership recognizes this, and makes it out into a better situation, because the VT-ACC era is not going to be remembered as some golden age, like some of you on here think it will. It's going to be looked at as initially a good partnership that became a major calamity. Let's break it down - VT hasn't sniffed an ACC championship since 2016, and it was 2011 before that. They never made it to the same echelon of success they did while in the Big East Football Conference. With the exception of Fuente's first season, they've now basically been a complete non-factor in the conference for a decade and nationally for well over a decade. They're stuck in a conference made up almost entirely of relatively small-enrollment schools that are primarily focused on basketball, with schools in Texas and California that don't draw TV eyes for anything, let alone football. The conference has what is, by all accounts, a terrible media rights deal that is locked in until 2036, 5 years longer than every other major conference, who will all get to renegotiate in 2031. And, on top of all that, they're about to get even less money, because, to get FSU and Clemson to stay on for another 10 years, the conference is going to start distributing media rights money based upon broadcast viewership. I don't know if either of you noticed, but VT hasn't been playing on network TV, ESPN, or ESPN2 much in the past 5 years, so I really don't think that's going to help VT's bottom line. They also will now play Notre Dame even less than they were before, because ESPN apparently only wants to schedule Notre Dame vs. FSU, Miami, and Clemson. And, FSU and Clemson (probably Miami too, at least they appear to have some semblance of self-interest) are just going to leave the conference as soon as they can anyway, which is going to trigger a panicked mass exit by any other schools that can. So, you all can sit around all day and say, "well, they could be OSU or WSU," but they're not. They've never been in that position, but they're sure going to be in 2036 (or sooner) when the football brands all leave the ACC, which is 100%, zero uncertainty, definitely going to happen. No serious football brand will ever sign another GOR to the ACC after everything that has transpired in the last decade and the clear incompetence demonstrated by the conference administration. Yes, VT had great success when they first entered the conference, but that's been 20 years ago now. 20 years ago, nobody was saying VT couldn't compete with the big boys, or that the ACC was a second rate joke conference. All that negativity and corresponding financial difficulty is thanks to 20 years of bad decisions and laurel resting, both by the folks at VT and the ACC. So, my opinion and my point is, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, VIEWED NOW, TODAY, IN CONTEXT - the ACC is looking more and more like a net negative for VT.

the crux of the matter as you allude to is how much of the ACC now looking more and more like a net negative for VT is attributable to the ACC and how much is attributable to the failings of the VT administration? The period between now and 2031 is critical for VT to get their own house in order. We will see how many other things pan out as you predict. If the last 24 months has shown anything no one in the general public has a clue until the guys actually pulling and controlling the purse strings tell them what to think. Thankfully, events have cleared out a lot of trolls (I do not consider you a troll, we just have had past differences of opinions), with the exception of one or two hangers on, and has allowed more substantive and fact based debates to resume.

But, I think the conference affiliation has now become much more an anchor than an elevator. I appreciate the kind words, and am glad you don't consider me a troll. I very much enjoy discussing all of this. As always, we are living through history.

for anyone outside the BIG or SEC is likely much more of an anchor than elevator in the present environment. All VT can do is look out for VT and control what they can control on their own to give themselves options. I have concerns in that regard with the present VT admins, both athletic and university. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 2/3/2025, 1:14:59 PM

the complete lack of homogeneity among its members and the corresponding extremely high level of volatility. There is no unity in mission. It's a bunch of schools that are very different and do different things and have different agendas, so it's a conference that you really can't brand or market. Accordingly, the ACC "brand" has become, "this team sucks." That's why every member with an ambitious football agenda that wasn't in a G5 conference this time last year currently wants out of the ACC.

problem or challenge and one largely going back to the original date of conference formation. Aside from the P2 and the PAC 12 formerly there are only so many comparable institutions to go around. The homogeneity you speak of is important with respect to branding and operating vision. A conference, IMO, can operate with a limited number of outliers(think Vanderbilt and Northwestern) but, the ACC is likely too different and the Big 12 is as well . However, the Big 12 differences revolve more around geography I think than institutional composition. The changes between now and 2031 should be interesting to watch. I do not expect the 2036 ACC GOR date to reach completion nor do I think it was ever the real intention. IMO, the length was about a long runway to allow all conference members and conference affairs to wind down to an orderly landing unlike what the PAC 12 faced, however, it has come with more bumps, I think, than originally anticipated for a variety of reasons.

First, my "old guys" comment was in regards to @2hhoop3 , not you. I don't think you're 12, nor do I think you're in your 70s. I agree with you, that at the time VT joined the ACC, it was a good decision,....for then. I also agree that those conditions can change over time. I also agree with you that those conditions have changed. We/VT might want to be in one of the P2s now, but that desire is not for us to determine (as you say, things change). VT is now in the majority group that needs an invite to join a P2. And, I'm on record saying that ain't gonna happen. Like Bettina Altizer says, "It's all about the money." The power that be (ESPN/Fox/SEC/B1G) want a bigger pie, and fewer slices, thus maximizing their individual payouts. Nothing VT or most others can do about that. The aforementioned powers that be have taken their avariciousness to new heights. Your recitation of the vagaries of VTs travels through conferences reiterates @Will Stewart 's articles years ago about VT's search for a home. And, your reflection on the downward trend of VT athletics is well known and well documented. That downward trend is of our own making. ACC leadership has been weak, and continues to be reactive vice proactive. And like FSU and Clemson, we signed the GoR willingly and knowingly. The GoR has a yin and yang, and we both benefit suffer accordingly. Now, while I can't speak for others, I didn't intend to dismiss your opinions to demean you in any way. I think my responses and others replied appropriately with opinions/facts that countermanded your positions. And as for your ALLCAPS final sentence, it may prove to be right, or it may prove to be wrong. Time will tell. And, based upon ACC leadership and VT leadership, I may tend to agree with you. But, the closing act hasn't been written yet.

Something about ND games being more with Clemson, FSU, and Miami.

Few thoughts: I am not sure if ND will move up to 6 games permanently or they just don't count Stanford w/ the original 5 ACC opp each season. If two of those 5 go to FSU/Clem/Mia each season, that leaves a rotation of 3 games available to the remaining 13 teams (I didn't include Stanford). Thus, we would be a positive to get them once every 4 years. Our current futures schedule shows VT-ND match-ups for '27, '28, '33, and '36 (thru '36). That would average once every 3 years (like the original agreement stated). I would think ND would like that because going to Bburg would still be a good-size draw - does VT get any buyout $$$ if they cancel some of those dates, or do they consider them ever-changing like our conference schedule each year? Another thought would be why wouldn't ND join the ACC fully? The ACC (apparently with the way they have handled themselves over the last 5 years) would bend over backwards for any shot at this. No doubt in my mind ND could join, keep their own TV deal for their home games, and state which teams they would want to play for at least 5 or 6 of their 8 conference games. I think the kicker in this was the ACC getting into Texas and California since adding 2-3 games w/ the ACC would still allow the national schedule. ND wants to play a national schedule. Also, if the SEC and B10 do their agreement of having their teams play one another, there are less opportunities for ND to fill their schedule. They could state they want Stanford each year (keep their rotating Cali trip w/ USC/Stanford) - they already have two of the 3 of FSU/Clem/Mia so they have a trip to Florida almost guaranteed each year. They can demand to rotate w/ BC and Syr to go northeast each year. They can rotate w/ the VA/NC schools to get to the mid-Atlantic each year. Also, SMU is in the mix so they can get down to TX (maybe include an OOC TX opponent to rotate to get there each year or another in-conference foe which leads me to...). One other thought if ND fully joins - the ACC gets some more $$$ (not P2 $$$, but closing the gap some). That would keep schools from leaving somewhat. Could the ACC hand-pick a few Big 12 schools to help with the ND to TX issue, or add WVU to get some more rivalries while adding a state (not big one, but another). Do they grab Utah, Kansas, one of the TX schools, and/or a couple of other schools to get to 20, 22, or even 24 before the Big 12 media deals end (even BYU)? I only mention this because I think if the ACC adds a couple more schools, it wouldn't dilute if you get to pick the ones they want - this would also be a basketball move - I was looking at basketball standings, and I could not overlook 10 of the top 25 are SEC schools (15 if you add B10 schools). Right now, only 2 of the top 25 are ACC schools. I would think yearly matchups of Kansas-Duke or UNC-Kansas would move some eyeballs in February.

indication or even a hint that ND would join any conference, let alone the ACC for football. As you know, they're already in for everything else. As you say, the ACC would bend over for them to join the ACC in football, as did the Big East. However, the ND psyche is entrenched in their independence. Like I said, I can buy the logic, not the premise.

No matter how much you simp for the stripper, she ain’t changing.

I'm all for all ND teams to play an independent national schedule.

ND defines itself, its total sports identity, by its football independence. That is entirely how ND sees itself. ND's president during ND's 1999 public rejection of the Big Ten's formal offer of membership said that ND was: "Private, Catholic and independent". It still sees itself that way. Big donors condition their athletic donations on continued ND independence. ND has been independent for its entire 130+ year existence, except for the pandemic induced 2020 season. ND fans hated being in a conference that year and could not wait until ND bolted for independence again. Why doesn't Alabama join the Big Ten or Wisconsin the SEC ? Because it would go against their entire identities. Same for ND. It just wants to be left alone in all of the conference realignment BS. ND does not ever want to join any football conference for any reason. Why do it? Why give up its self identity, its tradition, the entire way it runs its program ?? Why surrender to the damned conferences and/or networks who don't have ND's best interests in mind ??? ND doesn't need to join a conference to make money or to make the playoffs. Conferences nowadays are simply big, bloated things, mainly TV collectives now. ND doesn't need a collective to get a TV deal. ND giving up independence would be running up the white flag and spitting on its entire existence. It would be the darkest day in ND history. The AD who does that would be vilified as a Quisling. ND will fight to the bitter end to keep its independence. There is no administration, alumni, donor or fan sentiment to join conference. Quite the contrary, in fact. Adamant contrary opinion, actually. Telling ND fans that the Irish should join a football conference is akin to insulting their mothers. Fighting words. I am surprised that some people still do not understand the depth and passion of ND's commitment to football independence. ** Edited by TerryD at 1/31/2025, 11:09:58 AM

With talks about going to 14 and wanting 4-4-2-2, ND joining the ACC may switch it to 4-4-3-2 - ND could make it as a top 3 ACC team which may be easier than being the lone at-large. If they go to 16, then you could have 2 at-large teams so even if ND isn't tone of the top 3 (could be highly-ranked, but playing a much tougher schedule than the top 3, could get them in as an at-large).

they going to play more than 5-6 games now that the Conference has expanded because of their leading it? ** Edited by Stech at 1/30/2025, 7:59:28 PM

The rotation among all ACC schools will be scrapped. ND will play 2 of FSU, Clemson and Miami each year as part of the 5-6 games per year. This deal helps ND's SOS and TV draw and helps keep ND independent by keeping the ACC intact.

Miami is always overrated. They usually have the most talent on paper, but most of those seem to be "head cases" who find ways to blow wins, followed by a collapse of a preseason prediction of success. The only reason Miami had the record they did this past season was with a lot of help from the ACC Officials in Charlotte. They should have had at least two more losses. But I guess if ND wants to ensure two wins over well known teams... Clemson is elite when they have an elite QB. Otherwise they fall into the "just good" category. VT needs to return to "hard nosed" football like it played in the old Big East days and let the chips fall where they may...

Miami nor fsu will improve anything. Clemson yes! Imho ND has somewhat already given up independence. Abd still controls much the happenings. Not sure they deny . No matter both ND and acc using each other.

ND was doing that before the PAC12 implosion. ND can have its own deal, and the ACC would get the benefit of Stanford home games. I wanted this for Navy. You called it scope creep. But never in my wildest dreams did I see Stanford in the ACC. And here they are.

Stanford now being in the ACC complicated things because ND didn't want to be contractually obligated to six ACC games per year. We will have to see the details on the new scheduling deal to see if ND will continue to play Stanford past 2025 but ND doesn't want to get that close to full membership.

ND could follow through on the ACC commitment of the 5 games, but ND could contract with Stanford to continue playing independently from the ACC. Similar to how UNC contracted to play Wake Forest, and it wasn't an ACC game. For ND who cares whether Stanford is in the PAC12 or ACC, ND wouldn't be contracting with the conference. I get that they don't want to increase the 5 games, but they may want to still play Stanford. ND and Stanford have been playing all along when Stanford was PAC12.

That would still be six games against ACC opponents no matter how you package it. Too many.......

Can you for once not divert from that simple question and be truthful on this question?

Neither did you or anyone else until it was announced.

I didn't have any idea that ND was talking to the ACC about partial membership in 2011-12. Did anyone know until the announcement?

before they joined the ACC for all sports and 5-6 football games. As far as me, I have been talking about Notre Dame being a part of the ACC long before they joined for all sports and 5-6 games for football. Probably you came here after they joined and did the football 5-6 agreement, but I was saying since 2003 when I had a source that said they would eventually join. PS I did want ND as a full member in football, but I no longer want ND in the ACC, I really don’t care what they do, as long as they don’t have favoritism over others for getting in the playoffs, and how much money they make. I will keep speaking out about that, as long as that is the case.

Remember you never thought ND would sign the 5-6 game agreement with the ACC either before you answer. 😁

I know you want it to happen but the P2 will have control of everything without needing to break away

Too painful to think about, I get it.

I answered you. Its less likely to happen than ever, the two big conferences will get all they want without it.

tells us why you refuse to answer the question.

I....don't.....think....that....a split...is...ever....going....to...happen. That is my answer. If it does, I don't think that ND goes with the P2, especially if it is a minor league divorced from academics. Anything else that you want to know ?

the obvious that Notre Dame did join the ACC for all other sports and 5-6 football games. You reach and ignore by acting like Notre Dame is fully independent, and ND is not. In fact they just agreed to be more involved in ACC football by playing Clemson, Florida State and Miami more often. Notre Dame is less and less independent from the ACC as time goes by, but you don’t want to see that and you probably never will.

It likely will never be in one. You don't want to recognize that reality.

As far as Notre Dame joining a Conference, you are also not recognizing I have said numerous times, I no longer care if ND joins a Conference now there is a P 2 and not a P4-5. I do care that Notre Dame doesn’t get an unfair advantage by not being in a Conference, but that ship will be righted eventually IMHO. So I don’t care much about that as long as they eventually rectify it, which I think they will.

possible the P2 may not have a choice if they end up playing by a slightly different set of rules than the rest of DI. The change could come about because of a court ruling, federal/state governments pass a new law, or the schools decide they want to play by a different set of rules. The most obvious choices to trigger the separation would be the treating of athletes as employees or roster sizes, but I am sure there are other obvious reasons.

Right now, there is no split or breakaway and may not be one.

discussed in them, I am not sure we can draw any conclusions at this time.

play the blue bloods, or 2 out of 3, every year. That leaves fewer ND games for the rest of the ACC.

-The ACC agrees to schedule more marquee football games with ND. - Notre Dame agrees to play a 6th ACC game (against Stanford). - ESPN agrees to pay a bonus for a stronger matchup. This money will be used to address the uneven revenue distribution. Win-win-win. ** Edited by RandomAsianGuy at 1/30/2025, 7:37:45 PM

differently. I see ND scheduling Miami, Clemson, and FSU every year. Maybe Stanford, but rotating everyone else in the ACC. Then, those schools use those viewership ratings to claim their "brand" money from the ACC. ND will schedule anyone they want, and no longer play the rotation they have been on. Those ACC home games against ND will be high profile games, on network prime time, and the blue bloods of the ACC and ESPN both get what they want. VT will be in that mix when they start competing for a National Championship again, as will any other team in the ACC. Until then, it's my guess that the basketball and football blue bloods will get more money than the rest of the ACC, a trade off for stability.

ESPN/ACC already extended the contract. They're now working on additional 'value adds.' But the ACC won’t agree to this unless ND plays 6 games and ESPN pay for it. ND wants to stay independent. The P2 won’t offer a non-football membership. The Big East pays less than $10 million, and their baseball and Olympic sports are weak. The Big 12 isn’t as attractive an option as it was in 2014 and has zero snob appeal. You know ND is playing 6 ACC games this year, right? Now, what did you read differently? In the previous post, I stated as a part of deal, the ACC would agree to schedule more marquee games, and that's a concession the ACC would be willing to make for ND.

If that’s the deal, I’m good.

Every single source out there says FSU, Clemson, and Miami will now be granted special status, and 2/3 will play Notre Dame every year, which will go towards fulfilling ND's contractual obligation to schedule x number of ACC teams per year. All this means is VT gets less money, less TV exposure.

everyone else ask how come ND ISN’T playing VT.

name like you just did. ND will agree to no such thing. they are playing 6 this year because Stanford was already under contract. The ACC is making no concessions to ND. On the contrary, ND may agree to play the blue bloods more often as a favor to the ACC to keep them happy - and stay in the conference. ND has lots of options, and they do not need 10M of media money to be competitive. You do realize how much money they make without media money, don't you? They could go to the Big east in a heartbeat, and not skip a beat - but they have an agreement with the ACC, and they will honor it. You should be grateful to ND, and it appears some in the ACC have their nose in the air. We are just fine out here in the B12 stopping at truck stops, and drinking our beer. Compare the ratings, compare the fan engagement, and compare the current ACC top to bottom with the B12. Or better yet, schedule some non conference games with them.

But ND is playing Stanford this year again. I am cool with ND. The arrangement works very well for both sides. But no, I don’t agree with your statement that the ACC needs ND more than ND needs the ACC.

It should have been expected by everyone, but there were so many podcasts and youtubers saying it would not happen that people started to believe ESPN would bail.

Maybe in 2036, or the 2-3 years leading up to 2036. But not until then ** Edited by PadrosWindup at 1/30/2025, 6:30:56 PM