might think. The announcement of the ESPN contract extension, and the new exit penalties are getting most of the attention, as many are focused on which school ends up in which conference. While I too have been guilty of that thinking, I think i have changed my mind. The details of the ACC uneven distribution "system" base on brand and viewership have not been released. It may be the biggest change in how we look at college football moving forward - not the conference media contract, and conference share of the playoff money, but how uneven distributions can actually get more money from the networks (media). Currently, the conferences are in competition for the media dollars, and we all witnessed what happened when the B12 got a decent contract and the PAC imploded. Some thinking that the B12 got in front of the line, and received the contract offered to the PAC. Maybe yes, maybe no, but you see the point. We all assume that when the contracts come up for renewal, that the Big 10 will receive a raise, and add teams to their conference. The same for the SEC, which shows the consolidation of the top schools, and more is better. Think, .... More is better. Would all of the teams in FBS football receive MORE money if there was only one contract? It's why the ACC and B12 both expanded as well, and why most of the discussions surround which school will end up in which conference. How will the details of uneven distribution pan out? It's not the same as the old B12 and Texas (another thread). If the uneven distribution ends up being fair and objective, the ACC may have stumbled into the future by necessity.

These are not Mama’s Basement Podcasters either, these are people with great connections to the P2. So I think your last statement is spot on, uneven distribution is just getting started. You could even see the top of the ACC and B12 make more money than the bottom of the P2. In other words if you go to the P2, you sure better win, because the guaranteed money is likely dropping, and the variable money based on performance is likely increasing no matter what Conference you play in.

that big media had/has a future use for, the ACC is being used as a test model for unequal revenue. My idea of what this will do is: 1-make more money for the leaving 4. I am assuming that UNC can get away from NCSU although they may not. 2- After those leaving are gone the unequal distribution will greatly benefit whomever is at the top of the ACC going forward. I see a VT receiving preferable unequal distribution and facing even the $75 mil exit fee as being the best place possible other than the SEC. 3- Yourmark and the B12, seeing the ACC best getting significantly more money than the B12 best will push for the B12 to do the same. 4- If that model works for both leagues, then that will be all the real bigs in the P2 want to change it so the lower half of their leagues are about equal in payout to the better teams in the ACC/B12 (and maybe the PAC) Meanwhile the real big bluebloods get a bigger and bigger percentage of the total $$$ that flow to what is still called college football.

key is schedule up in competition to get TV ratings, not down. Notre Dame playing 8 P4 teams and no Conference Championship while others do, needs to end. They had a much better chance of being healthy going into the playoffs doing that versus Georgia who loses their starting QB or FSU who lost their starting QB the year before. ** Edited by Stech at 3/10/2025, 11:40:32 AM

reduce down to say 8 teams and only play 6 in league games so both leagues, and maybe the PAC can schedule more best on best matchups?

I thought I saw in 2029, if so that merger is not out of the realm of possibility.

Schools from leaving.

They would be bottom of the barrel IRT payouts. F$U or Clemson wouldn't see much of an increase over what the ACC is setting them up to receive in the new arrangement.

be to stay in the ACC, where obviously, being at the top is an easier climb than in P2?

what it is right now.

So that make is harder to leave anyway. Ditto for UNC and NC State.

The teams that rise to be the recipients of the unequal funding and are not desired by the P2 won't have a better deal in any other non P2 league.

The only reason VT and UVA were "tied together politically" back in the early 2000s is because Mark Warner wanted to gain influence in SWVA, where, let's just say, his political party did not and does not have a lot of pull. The then-president at UVA understood, and was already on board, but the UVA Board of Visitors, whose votes were necessary for UVA to give the "thumbs up," was going to be a problem. So, Warner threw his weight around and exerted a significant amount of influence on the UVA BOVs, whom the governor appoints and who serve at his pleasure. In other words, he made it known to the UVA BOVs that they either saw to it that VT made it into the ACC, or he was going to relieve them of their duties and appoint people who would do what he said. So, they did what he said. Basically, the stars had to align just right for VT to make it into the ACC when they did - there was a perfect confluence of circumstances. Had the governor been someone else with a different temperament at the time, or had circumstances been slightly different, VT would have remained in the Big East, and would in all likelihood be in the Big 12 now with WVU. There's zero reason to think that VT and UVA are "tied together politically" now. The polarized political climate that exists now in Virginia vs. that of 25 years ago is like daylight and dark, with a real emphasis on the dark. Quite frankly, it's a wonder that anything gets done in Richmond. As an aside, VT and UVA are also not part of the same university system and controlled by the same governance structure like UNC and NCSU are.

understanding of how things came about in 2003. William Goodwin a VT and UVA alum got the ball rolling and Warner, recognizing a political win got on board with VA. government backing. Goodwin and one other powerful UVA BOT member with ties to UVA and VT laid all the groundwork. Warner largely provided cover and political clout.

in the ACC. When the next round of realignment comes along VT and UVA may support each other publicly, but I doubt either university will turn down an invite to one of the P2s even if it means leaving the other behind.

Here is an article from 2023. Is the tie permanent or something that can't be worked around? Probably not. But let's not act like either of the schools can make decisions about realignment without strong consideration of the other, or the state government. Some have speculated on this board that VT could have been the #14 team to the SEC with A&M in 2014. But we were in no position politically to pursue it. And of course, Mizzou, with no in-state ties, ended up in the slot. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 3/10/2025, 9:54:47 AM

That was just cold, hard lack of vision by way of elite-ist snobbery from the people running things at VT at the time. They thought the ACC was the pinnacle, looked down their nose at the SEC from their ivory tower, and VT has been paying the price for it pretty much ever since. There's no speculation about it. Anyone that knows anything knows the back channel invitation was there, and that it was rebuffed. The AG, and any future AGs can say whatever they want, and they will, because posturing and looking big and strong is part of the job in the WWE Monday Night RAW era of politics we're living in now. FACILITATING conference realignment is one thing, but we have seen time and time and time again that politicians have next to nothing in the tank when it comes to the ability to HALT conference realignment. Also, I highly, highly doubt this will ever come up in the context of UVA leaving VT behind. It will be the other way around, if anything. UVA is somewhat of a unique case...it doesn't need the TV money, which is a drop in the pool to them in the grand scheme, and otherwise has next to zero interest in the factors that are driving conference realignment.

to your opinion and forbade is not the appropriate word. However, terming it elitist snobbery wholly ignores the reality of the situation. Recognizing the political capital that was expended in 2003 on VT's behalf influenced thinking and decision making far more than any elitist attitude. In addition, at the end of the day as a state school VT is subject to state authority. At the end of the day, even at shrinking levels, state funding and good relations with ALL lawmakers in Richmond dwarfs athletic considerations, an operation that represents a relatively insignificant(less than 10%) part of university operations. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 3/10/2025, 11:30:09 AM

it's true. I'm also entitled to believe what I've been told, by multiple people that I know would know - the "back channel" invitation was extended, and it was rebuffed, meaning the unofficial SEC channels were told by the unofficial VT channels that they had no reason to leave the ACC because they thought their position at the time, both in competitive and financial terms, to be superior in the ACC. The invitation was extended at, if not the zenith of VT's time in the sun, not far over the zenith, and it was considered, and rebuffed without the involvement of any politicians. Political capital had zero to do with it. VT considered their position and future in the ACC to be superior to what the SEC was offering, which turned out to be an enormous, enormous strategic mistake. I don't think it was necessarily a frivolous mistake, but it was definitely owing to a lack of vision and an inability to read the writing on the wall regarding which way the wind was blowing.

regarding the backchannel invite. You have now demonstrated in multiple posts you do not have an accurate understanding of how things came about, your opinions notwithstanding. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 3/10/2025, 12:05:14 PM

"in the know." I won't ruin it for you.

perfectly you would not be posting obviously wrong information. There is nothing pretend about the facts I have presented as a counter to your obvious and erroneous fantasies.

typical reply from you. When backed into a corner where you cannot factually support your stance you resort to snark. We both know if you could dispute it you would.

Please provide a verified source where we can confirm that a politician or some group of politicians prevented VT from leaving the ACC for the SEC. If you can't, that means you're lying. At least that's what it means if we're taking your approach. This is the last post I'm leaving in response to this. I know you, and you will go on and on for 40 posts back and forth if a grown up doesn't stop this now.

a politician or some group of politicians preventing VT from leaving the ACC for the SEC just like I never said anything about the backchannel invite. Just more of your lack of reading comprehension and inability to discuss the point of contention and defend your position. You contended the decision was elitist snobbery on VT's part and the linking was driven by Warner trying to curry political favor in SWVA and that in declining the SEC backchannel invite VT concluded their position in the ACC was superior to what the ACC offered. Your contentions are either wholly or partially inaccurate. The decision was based on a realistic assessment of the political landscape and the position of the entire university, not elitist snobbery. You next contended Warner drove the bus he did not originally drive bus but, he later agreed to board the bus as an additional driver and was well aware of future political considerations far beyond SWVA. Finally, the backchannel decline was a timing consideration driven by a host of considerations and NEVER boiled down to a statement that they considered their position in the ACC, competitively and financially to be superior. You may think your sources were in a position to know, however, I know mine were in the room. You may also think you are an adult but, if you believe your last post stops anything with its obvious fallacies you're even more confused than your earlier inaccuracies have already shown. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 3/10/2025, 3:53:19 PM

Virginia Tech needs to call the SEC. That one hurts. The SEC is still mad at FSU for turning them down, and unfortunately we seem to now be in the same category. Everyone knows in spite of the fast talking this is about College Football TV ratings. Now Andy Bitter says his SEC/ESPN connections are saying the SEC President’s want UVA over Virginia Tech. I think he’s probably right, unfortunately right now. However, don’t even try to sell me UVA’s TV ratings are better than our ratings, or that they can compete in SEC like we can with another great coach. PS I still want Virginia Tech and UVA in the same P2, but if not we are a better fit for the SEC and they fit best in the B1G.

to me.

I doubt if it was clear cut VT said no. State govt' did and SEC would know that.

An invite to the P2, just because the other School did not get the invite. That's a lot of voters you would be making Very angry. This is a totally different situation from before. Before UVA was already in the ACC. They were just being asked to vote a certain way, they were not being asked to give up anything. I cannot imagine somebody who needs the votes of Virginia residents asking a school to give up an invitation to the SEC or Big ten. Promote the other school, yes. But to reject an invitation because of the other school, can't see that happening. That's a quick path to not being reelected. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 3/10/2025, 10:03:39 AM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 3/10/2025, 10:04:15 AM

But they might not have been 10 years before that.

they voted for it. I don’t think they believe they will ever be able to compete except ND in football, but they do think they can in basketball. They do need the NCAA 🏀 tournament to expand to create more money, but eventually that will happen from everything I have heard and read.