and send one north. ** Edited by IB4TECH at 5/22/2025, 8:09:23 PM ** Edited by IB4TECH at 5/22/2025, 11:34:35 PM

win over logic way to often these days.

They have had a bigger fall than VT compared to the past glory years. They had a good run with Jimbo Fisher, but look at what they have done since 2017. Over 8 seasons, 5 of them have ended in losing records. They have only played for the ACC championship one time. They have not made the playoff in the old or new format. And they finished dead last in an expanded ACC last year. FSU is the classic example of coasting on past glory and getting propped up by the media based on that in order to generate viewers for games.

Way too many like your post think this is about winning, even winning championships. I would hold that to big media that is not a major concern. A bigger concern is that someone they have rejected suddenly wins one. Big media has been so clear, they want a limited number of brand names and for the winners to come from that group period. they don't want to promote or carry 126 teams or maybe even 46 teams, they want less and they have already identified them. IMHO there is nothing that can be done on the field by any team non identified team that will move their needle.

There's no chance to compete for a championship, now or ever. The media has decided that they are not allowed. OK. Then, why should VT even have a football program? Let's hear your answer. Go ahead.

in the lower divisions. The question I ask back is in your opinion, should VT keep playing football in a "college" division if/when the door is totally closed on VT advancing to the P2? I still think we are moving toward a "pro" division and a "college" division with each having a championship.

They HAD the opportunity to compete for championships, but certain feckless administrators have allowed the SEC and Big 10 to slowly close that door to the point that it's barely open a sliver at this point. As things stand now, there will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, be another national champion from outside the SEC/Big 10 Cartel, except maybe Notre Dame, and, frankly, even that's a long shot. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what I think/want - I just look to history to tell me what's going to happen, and what I assume is going to happen is the same thing that's been happening. Everyone in the college football landscape with the ability to fight back against the cancer that's killing the sport will just keep bowing down to and appeasing the SEC and Big 10 at every opportunity so they can lick up whatever little crumbs they leave on the floor, and will just pretend like they're actually competing in the same division, right up until the point where the SEC and Big 10 break completely away, and they're just left behind anyway.

VaTech should drop both football and Bassettball!

They did make the original CFP in 14-15 and got destroyed by Oregon.

unequal revenue sharing. The ACC's death warrant had already been signed for some time, but had it not been, that would have sealed it. Success based unequal revenue sharing is an entirely different discussion, because it incentivizes competition and investment, but ratings based unequal revenue is antithetical to the entire idea of a competitive conference, and is a clear signal that the conference is not going to make it. Everyone knows how badly I loathe the position the worthless freeloader schools put other schools like VT in in this conference, but let me say something from their POV - even if Wake Forest won every game for the next 5 years, and FSU lost every game, it will not change the fact that more people will still watch FSU games, notwithstanding where they are broadcast. That is a fact. That is why it was stupid to implement the change, even if it meant keeping FSU and Clemson in the conference - it eliminates incentives to compete. Schools that want unequal revenue sharing based on TV ratings should just leave the conference and go independent, because that's really what they're doing with unequal revenue sharing - they're getting more money, regardless of actual on-field results, without having to deal with all the headaches of making their own schedules and dealing with their own administrative headaches. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 5/22/2025, 4:30:08 PM

Brand bonuses might work out OK for the ACC, especially if other conferences do it, too. I can imagine the B10 adopting brand bonuses, with Michigan and Ohio State pushing for it. Why should they put up with even payouts when Clemson is not. If they do, bringing in new schools will be much harder for the B10. New schools will have to come in at the bottom of the brand ladder, and stay there for a long probationary period, with no guarantee of getting near the top. The top of the ACC could pay better than that, and be a very comfortable position for the top 3 or so. If we can hold it together long enough to begin negotiating a new TV deal, the ACC might finally catch up to its natural media value, and the ACC could close a lot of the distance between it and the P2. ** Edited by Truthahn at 5/23/2025, 11:08:59 AM

with zero consideration given to on-the-field results. I don't care if it keeps the ACC together another five years by placating Clemson or Florida State; it's not good for VT.

BC, Cuse, WF, SMU, and a few others would not be part of it. I'd also guess that Cal, Stanford, Houston, Cincy, and a couple others would not be part of it. FSU, UNC, Clemson, Miami, and ND are not "friends" of any conference. You also leave out teams like TT, TCU, BYU, and a few others that would rate much higher than the lower 1/3 of the ACC.

If you are going for four total CFP slots, that would justify it better than 3 pods from a single conference.

For the revenue sports for flexibility in scheduling. The non revs should be as regional as possible. Why not have the best of both worlds.