Curious about payments to get out of conference
We are playing the If game - If VT has a chance to go to a P2 shortly, do we have an inkling of how VT would cover the $147 million (now)? Do they go to court again and work to lower the mark, do the recent $$$ given to VT pay the bulk, does ESPN cover some of the costs or make an agreement with the leftovers of the ACC (if a decent amount of teams move), or they are allowed to pay over time?
The ESPN question would be interesting - ESPN could agree to pay the leftovers a lower 1/3 rate through 2036 (lower 1/3 meaning what was the average of the lower 1/3 that was distribute due to their new viewership and other rules) and agree to pay up to a certain number of new teams, or get the payouts upfront, but ESPN cancels the remainder of the contract. This could offset having to pay that amount - especially for the ones going to the SEC since they stay under the ESPN umbrella.
67 Replies
S
Stech
1mo
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
4w
Everything would be renegotiated
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
4w
not 11, 9+1 IMHO at the very most.
IMHO the ACC gets B12 basketball first schools, and like they always have, they thrive on basketball.
(In response to this post by 4x4hokies)
H
HouClone
4w
ESPN pulled the strings on the Oklahoma and Texas move to the SEC. ESPN then used the previous Big East playbook by actively moving Big 12 schools to the ESPN controlled and less costly AAC. But then ESPN got Bowlsby'ed. Bowlsby sent in a cease and desist
letter to ESPN on their actions to harm the Big 12. Bowlsby said he has evidence.
Kind of would like to see this situation just only for any Kessler type lawyer representing leftover Big 12 schools in suing ESPN and issuing a subpoena to Bowlsby to get past ESPN's role on realignment out in the open.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
4w
them make more money IMHO. They don’t think about breaking up or keeping together conferences, they think about getting the most money they can earn from ratings.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
H
HouClone
4w
ESPN says with schools X and Y, we will give you this. You take X and Z, this is what you will pay you. The presidents and board members are the ones that sign off on everything.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3w
usually based on TV ratings for football. If it was just academics, Stanford and Duke would already be in the P2. That said, it would not completely shock me to see the B1G eventually grab both.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
1mo
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
1mo
Even if they don't have the money. Sue the ACC. If they tied it up in litigation for eight or nine years, the ACC probably wouldn't even exist, at least not in any meaningful form that would be able to keep on fighting.
This point really demonstrates the entirely vulnerable position the ACC is in - literally the only thing keeping the conference together is that the SEC and B1G haven't opened the books.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/1/2026, 1:05:28 PM
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
3w
What would need to happen for the ACC to jettison 2-3 of its lowest performers?
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
I think it would be extremely difficult to garner the support necessary under the ACC bylaws to expel a member, because over half the conference are no-value or low-value football programs. That's a voting bloc you'd have to convince to go what I'm sure they would feel to be against their own interests. That's why I think the more likely route would be for valuable programs in the ACC and Big 12 to leave and consolidate elsewhere.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
Stech
4w
ESPN has a lot of sunk costs into the ACCN, I think they let the better football brands go to P2, but will use the ACCN to build a basketball powerhouse. I just don’t get them trying to preserve the B12, where the contract is split with Fox and TNT, and, they would to sink money into a conference channel to match what they make in the ACC, I think the ACC could pluck the 4 Corners, Kansas in the Midwest, and probably UConn, South Florida, WVU in the East, if enough ACC schools left. Seems to be way more financially feasible to me.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
in the grand scheme of things. Nobody watches it. That's why they don't post viewership numbers.
It's not a product that anyone actually wants, it's just a swindle perpetrated on people that don't know how to pirate broadcasts. At its core, it's more or less the same scam that the casinos in Vegas run when they tack on unadvertised "resort fees" to their hotel prices. It generates money, but it only does so by being a pork barrel tack-on to cable and streaming packages that people have to buy so they can watch other channels. And, the ACC was the last johnny-come-lately that was able to jump on the scam before they shut it down.
The conference networks, including the BTN and SECN, are all relics of legacy linear cable packages. They would not be a thing today, because there's no need. You just put the games on the Fox Sports app, or the ESPN app, and charge people more. Once cable finally dies out as a thing, so will the entire concept of the conference network, and it will just become a box to choose on a streaming app.
To more directly address your post - I sincerely believe that ESPN would toss the ACC and the ACCN in the trash bin of history tomorrow if they could cherry pick the best teams out of the Big 12 and ACC, create a new conference, and then own that conference's media rights. They want to own media rights to football games that people want to watch. That's as far as their "loyalty" goes. They don't pay the ACC because they love the ACC. They're doing it so they can put the one Clemson and FSU game a year when they play an SEC or Big 10 program at home on ABC or ESPN, and have plenty of filler content left over to fill the selection boxes on their streaming app.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3w
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
Nowhere in my post did I say that the ACCN did not generate revenue.
I just want to say something, because I assume we're all relatively intelligent folks on here, and that we enjoy dialogue with each other - If we're going to have intelligent conversations on here, I think a prerequisite should be to actually read the other person's post and not immediately jump to I GOTTA POST BACK TO HIM IMMEDIATELY THAT HES WRONG AND DUMB AND IM RIGHT.
** Edited by Will Stewart at 7/7/2026, 12:43:49 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
3w
Doesn't it read much nicer, and more respectful?
Hint.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
4w
they we anywhere close to how they were sold back then, the PAC would still be a conference, the blue bloods of the ACC would not want out, and the B12 would not have lost schools in the last 10 years. Even the ACCN is a failed business model. BTN is the only one that reports their ratings, and the only one that continues to pay anywhere close to the numbers when they became a thing.
I used to think not having a B12 network was a death nail. I changed my mind the second that ESPN and FOX both own rights to B12 games. With the next contract, multiple networks and streamers will be able to bid for content. Including Paramount who now owns CBS, CBS sports, TNT, True TV, and a few others. Add that NBC is now on their own from Comcast, and streamers are looing for live content - I am thrilled that the B12 does not have a network.
Now, there is no way for me to know if the next contract will be for more in 2031, but what I do know, is there are a LOT of linear channels and streamers looking for quality content.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
4w
vision money from ESPN as part of its expansion of the ACC Network.
Link:
Up 16%
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3w
people within so-many-miles of the Dallas and San Francisco metro areas that still subscribe to linear basic cable packages are each forced to pay for the ACCN, notwithstanding whether they watch it or even know what it is.
Everyone on here needs to understand that conference networks are profitable because people are forced to pay for them whether they want them or not, and when linear cable dies, so will that business model. It's a thing for the near term, but it's not going to be a thing forever, and folks would be wise to stop obsessing over it like it's some kind of permanent golden goose/game changer.
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HouClone
3w
ESPN and distributors came to an agreement it was only the San Fran and Dallas areas for in-market rates and not the whole states. The article I guess doesn't allege this is not the case. San Fran and Dallas has tons of people regardless.
(In response to this post by Stech)
4w
have to admit that is most likely a one off by adding California and Texas.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
4w
and I don’t see that changing if even the Mag 7+1 leave. I think ESPN/ACC try to grab D1 football schools that are 🏀 1st schools. If Kansas doesn’t make the P2, I think they are one of them.
Imagine Duke, Kansas, Arizona, UConn in the ACC. That’s some great basketball matchups.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
4w
UConn will be the basketball conference of the future. UConn would go to either the ACC or B12 tomorrow if there was an invite. frankly, I think it's the lack of a campus stadium that is holding them back.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1mo
forming a new conference. I am not very excited about hoping to finish 6th in the SEC any given year.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
those conferences are already over-bloated and unwieldly. It doesn't make sense to have a college conference with 20-24 teams unless the entire schedule is made up of conference games, and it barely makes sense even then. I know everything is about money, money, money, but they've really allowed the broadcasters to come in and royally screw everything up, all so they can put the exact same 8-9 teams in the exact same 3 time slots over and over and over and over and over. And, all that would be well and good if it had no bearing on anything else, because if the program you follow is in the FBS, you can basically watch every single one of their games in HD if you're resourceful enough. But, since 2014, they've also allowed the broadcasters to basically own and dictate how the championship format works, and, of course, they want the exact same 8-9 teams playing in the exact same post-season format over and over and over and over.
Frankly, I think the entire sport is cooked at this point. It sucks now. I'm happy for the players to make money, and can overlook the awkwardness of everyone pretending that any of them are there to get college degrees or that college has anything at all to do with any of it. But, it's become a professional sport with absolutely zero regulation of player contracts/salaries, a system that has never once worked in the history of organized athletic competition. And the format has thrown away everything that people loved for 125 years to become the Dollar Tree NFL for a small handful of programs, while everyone else is iced out and entirely irrelevant. And, I don't think there's any way to "save" it.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
Stech
4w
most northern SEC school will be able to pull amazing recruits. By the way, UVA in the B1G will get better too. I would love both to go to the SEC, but I think UVA likes the B1G better culturally. Virginia Tech could fit in both, but our med schools are too new, most likely. That or B1G just wants UVA more.
We just need to keep playing each other a lot if that happens.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
4w
GA, UF, AL, OK, TN, TX, aTm will consistently finish ahead of us. 6th will be a good year for VT.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
3w
Georgia is still very good, but not dominant, Texas as they have been for decades, can’t win the big one, Tennessee the same.
If you are just thinking of the recruiting under Fuente and Pry, I agree. If you think about what has happened the last 7 months under Franklin, and what would happen if we got kids that would play at Tech if they were in the SEC, it would be a very different scenario, very different IMHO.
*Bama is not dominating without Saban, and the introduction of NiL and no wait transfers. Vanderbilt a perennial bottom dweller except when Franklin was there is competing and beating Bama,
** Edited by Stech at 7/7/2026, 7:50:01 AM
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
4w
competition. Even with our increased financial commitment we will still be behind most of these schools financially. That is 10 schools + on occasion schools like Auburn and Ole Miss who will be a challenge. It would be easy in most years to find at least 5 of those schools ahead of us. So, 6th would be a good year.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
4w
Bama & TX in bowl games; A&M home & away; and TN…should’ve beat uga but a 24 pt lead wasn’t enough😳
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
Stech
4w
if we are in the same Conference as they are in, we lose kids just because the other school is in the SEC all the time. We will start winning some of those different maker battles if we are in the SEC.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
4w
But I would prefer the current ACC with the chance to win 10+ games every year.
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HouClone
1mo
Until this past year when NIL payments ramped up (BYU, Texas Tech), there isn't much change from #1 - #16. Kansas is the exception due to the basketball brand. ACC definitely has hierarchies. Maybe state schools get a nod as well as attendance and recent winning success in the major sports as criteria.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
BigXII: No blue bloods, but no doormats. Just parity.
It would be a fool's errand to pick, say, the top 8 programs from the BigXII.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
1mo
this month due to the threat of the bill, they could accept the invite now, but stay in the ACC for several years as the rates to drop.
But yeah, I agree with your concern about the exit fees at the current time. FSU fans are acting like this is nothing. Meanwhile, they are too broke to buy out Norvell.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
1mo
there are many that think they may go. FSU could make a similar agreement, and from where I'm sitting, prostituting your athletic department in the short term to get an invite to the BIG could actually pay off in the long run. NOT that I think that is the way to go, but I'm not an actuary, and don't know how many years it would take to get an ROI.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
1mo
move a non-P2 school closer to a deal? It is not new revenue and there is no guarantee it will be wisely spent to generate wins. PE is merely a financing strategy to shift revenue closer to the current period and, depending upon the terms, making the revenue shifted more expensive while decreasing actual total revenue over the term by the interest component. PE firms are nothing more than blood sucking parasites looking to exploit an organization's weakness for their own gain.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1mo
would allow a non P2 school to absorb a deal much like SMU or CalFord made to be invited to the ACC.
What if, as an example only, a few ACC schools and say a Utah join the BIG, and take considerably less media money for an extended period of time. A win win?
The same could happen for the SEC.
Certainly not advocating for a VT (example) to take PE money to cover an exit fee and less than the SEC distributions to get an invite, but I don't think one can dismiss the option. You pay back the money when you start receiving full distributions.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1mo
desires a particular school AND that school cannot afford the exit/entry I expect either of the SEC or B1G could finance their move at substantially more favorable rates. Taking a PE deal seems more akin to getting a cash advance on a credit card, a financing mechanism of last resort.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1mo
what if there is a school that wants in a conference, and that conference doesn't really want them? Stanford to the BIG might be a good example.
We assume that the BIG and SEC and the media guys want to expand into new markets. Maybe that is true, and the BIG really wants a UVA or a VT. What happens if it only splits the pie more, and the media companies do not want to pay $100M a year to broadcast UVA or VT? (just examples) Can they afford to pay the exit fees and take a short term (one contract) hit on their bottom line to get into the BIG?
I don't know, but if there was an invite to the BIG for KU, but the condition was that you have to take a CalFord type of a deal, I'm not at all convinced they would not look at private capital to make it happen.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1mo
the conference desired does not want you and/or is not willing to facilitate financing options, the school is better off finding another landing spot versus getting in to bed with PE vultures. Schools taking that approach are likely to learn a tough lesson on two fronts. The juice will not be worth the squeeze with respect to the conference option nor the financing plan.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1mo
at this a minute. Washington and Oregon took less media money, Cal and Stanford took less media money. SMU agreed to take no media money. Memphis offered $250M to join the B12. Even Sacramento State paid $18M to get an invite to the MAC.
I know how you feel about PE, as you have made that very clear. However, private capital in and of itself is not the boogie man you seem to be espousing.
Every single major sports league, including the NFL has partnered with PE in some form or fashion.
As I stated in my original post where I brought up Utah, and PE, I am not an actuary, and do not know how long it would take to get an ROI buying yourself into the BIG or SEC, but for the ones mentioned, including in your conference, it has to pencil out, or they wouldn't have done it.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1mo
"major sports league has partnered with PE in some form or fashion" is not the endorsement you believe it to be. That is more a reflection that with skyrocketing franchise values PE provides a transaction mechanism for minority ownership stakes to change hands relatively easy. There is a reason PE ownership percentages are capped in the NFL and it is about control and reducing PE firms to just another financing alternative. Did any of the colleges you mentioned use PE money to join new conferences or did they use conference or donor alternatives? Has PE financed any conference move yet? I doubt you really know how or why they have done it
I know exactly who and what PE firms are from years of exposure in business. Here is another hint for you actuaries deal with pensions, insurance and other liabilities while other financial professionals are the ones doing ROI and other financial analysis of deal metrics. PE firms are not the mob but, they will get their fair share and are very rarely left holding the deal bag.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
4w
college athletics in any way shape or form. You say that is a belief of mine, and given our history, how in the world could you espouse what I believe? I stated very clearly, that it is a development that is on the table, and can not be dismissed, no matter what either of us believe in. The FACT that PE firms have a relationship with ALL professional sports leagues, is just that, a FACT. With the NFL, you might be correct that it is a way for minority ownership to change hands - but really, I will have to take your word on that, as I don't have the time to research it. What I do know, is that the relationship with the NHL is much different, and as been a success to all franchises, and the PE firms alike.
The actuary comment was just a different way of saying it has to pencil out - but you knew that.
Your personal interactions with PE are completely irrelevent in the present tense. You are certainly entitled to your biases and opinions, but that doesn't change what is happening on the ground today. Like it or not, All but two of the BIG voted FOR PE involvement. I assure you, the presidents of those universities were most certainly involved in the discussions and votes. To do simple math, that is 16 for, and 2 against.
To repeat myself, I am not advocating for PE to be involved in college athletics, I am saying it is on the table, and to retain an archaic opinion of private equity in college athletics is putting your head in the proverbial sand.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4w
the FACT that all major pro leagues have a relationship with PE is not the endorsement you believe it is. Moreover, understanding the nature of those relationships is very relevant to understanding how those leagues view and use PE. You claim no time to further research the NFL or other leagues which could inform your opinion more. However, you make the claim that the NHL is different and a success all around, perhaps you can show your knowledge of that relationship and, more importantly, how that type relationship could translate to college athletics. I did not say you were advocating for PE, I did infer you lacked a basic understanding of how PE firms work as your posts demonstrate . Interactions with and knowledge of how PE firms work is absolutely relevant in the present tense.
What is irrelevant is a 16 to 2 vote by the BiG as you attempt to sidestep and avoid answering the questions you were previously asked. Again, did any of the colleges you mentioned use PE money for a conference move? Has PE money financed ANY conference move yet? Being on the table is a wholly different position than actually being fully in the game. Even your own league commissioner, involved with PE early, appears to have cooled on the possibility after gaining a deeper understanding. My position on PE is not putting my head in the proverbial sand, as you state, it is an informed, and not archaic, opinion based on industry knowledge gained from actually being on the ground in deals and observing how they work. While some of their techniques get modified over time, their basic playbook and objectives remain substantially unchanged.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
4w
is the reason to continue this discussion? Do you have a point somewhere? Do tell, besides winning an argument, or demeaning me, what exactly is your point?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4w
and always has been PE is a bad fit for college athletics, both individual institutions and conferences alike. Given the organizational structure PE can be little more than a high cost lender in the collegiate model and there are likely cheaper sources of capital.
I did not initiate the discussion you did. I challenged you to support your position with actual reasons which you have not and you continue to dig your hole deeper with each subsequent post. As far as demeaning, that is on you to defend your position. You bounce from one failed position to another in your constant quest to polish the Big 12. If you need more evidence, your recent post on conference networks is another example.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
4w
of my posts that PE doesn't belong in college athletics. However, it already is in college athletics, is not going away, and like it or not, it will be part of the future.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4w
college athletics goes, the depth of their involvement, at present, is debatable. Whether it will not go away and/or be part of the future depends on whether they can find a relationship that works long term. You say you have no interest in the PE/Pro relationships but, examining how pro sports views and uses PE at present likely holds a lot of clues as to what might and might not work in college athletics.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
4w
to have PE in the private sector, for whatever reason. With the patchwork of public Universities and the different States mechanisms and mandates, it would be virtually impossible to have PE involved on a school by school basis. from what I have read, Utah's venture with PE is a a commercial for-profit entity that manages the school's ticketing, sponsorships, licensing, and branding operations. The university retains majority ownership - but I do not know the specifics. but $500M is a lot of money.
We both see that the B12's PE deal has gone over like a lead balloon. A line of credit is available far any school, but so far, none have taken any money. Time will tell on that one, but I don't see the advantage. The conference gets $12.5M for commercial development, but frankly, I haven't seen where the ROI is coming from that, and they could have gone to a bank for that amount.
What has got my attention though, is that schools are buying themselves into conferences. Not sure where Memphis can come up with $250M to join the B12 and take no media money until 2031. How much money do you think they would offer to go to the SEC? It's insane. If schools go in that direction, like FSU?, they will do it with PE money.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4w
with whatever their big money donors will give them. They have done it for basketball in the past and are likely on speed dial.
PE looks to make money, for themselves and the investors in their funds. To do that, CONTROL is the primary goal. With control they can make operating decisions that can involve everything from strengthening the operating model to carving up individual assets and selling them Their exit strategy has divestiture by monetizing assets or selling it as a performing business or in an IPO. The challenge for PE in college is they are unlikely to be able to achieve the necessary level of control. The same thing happened to them with the various restrictions placed on them by pro sports leagues. Consequently, their most likely play are financing instruments with attractive rates and potential kickers or prepayment penalties. The pros offer an equity valuation play but, that is difficult in the current collegiate model. It MIGHT become possible with the new entities but, the schools have to be careful they do not get eaten by the sharks. A breakaway MIGHT provide money making opportunities BUT, you still have public/private challenges. If you study the pros, all the leagues have restrictions on ownership stakes with varying pre-approval and transfer conditions. They have used PE to give themselves a more liquid ownership market while retaining end control. I think it is a huge challenge for PE to be any more than a glorified lender in the current environment and if schools and conferences are smart they will devise restrictions in any new environments.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
4w
I read them as rhetorical in nature in that you already knew the answer to your question. This is not a deposition, and once again - for the last time - I will state that I am not, repeat, not advocating for PE to be in college football.
The individual reasons or successes/failures of PE in the professional leagues is of no concern to me for this discussion. the FACT that they are involved with PE though is. BTW, PE is already in college athletics - and while that money hasn't been used specifically for changing conferences, it is my opinion you can add a "yet" to that sentence.
This could be a decent discussion, but getting into the weeds with you takes away the fun. I ask questions because I do not know the answers.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/3/2026, 2:55:56 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
4w
why you avoided the question, your excuse notwithstanding. They can also see that you ran from the latest challenge to your NHL claim faster than a shoplifter from a store detective. Is it really the weeds that bother you or the fact you rarely, if ever, can carry your side of the discussion?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1mo
They went kicking and screaming into the BigXII. They basically trash the conference and act like they are too good for it. While EVERY school in the BigXII would like a P2 invite at this point, only Utah acts like an entitled child about it.
They were in the MWC a decade and a half ago, and somehow think they are in pole position to get into the B1G. Meanwhile, they are doing a deal with the devil to make it look like they have the money to rub shoulders with the likes of Michigan and Ohio State.
Utah isn't even the biggest brand in their own state.
The state of Utah is 30th in population.
Utah is AAU, but has an 86% acceptance rate.
Utah has no national or international presence (unlike BYU).
They are sucking up to the B1G hard core and it's pathetic. Apparently they checked with the B1G first to make sure the loan won't disqualify them from potential membership.
For some reason, you never hear them talking about what they can offer the SEC. I'm not sure why, because I think the SEC needs to get into new regions and time zones more than the B1G does.
If I am starting a conference, they are one of the least teams among the BigXII that I would take. I have Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado ahead of them for sure. And probably Kansas because of basketball, too. I also really like K-state, Oklahoma State, and WVU as expansion candidates as well.
Texas Tech can of course pound sand, too.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1mo
before Utah ever crosses their lips:
Florida
NC
VA
NoCal
CO
S.C.
GA
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1mo
a bum rap IMO - but they did to themselves.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1mo
I just think they look bad now from CC having too much influence on this current legislation on top of the who QB Sorsby thing. A PR nightmare for them. Other than than, I don't have a problem with their fans and squad.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1mo
I know for a fact that Oregon and Washington are doing much better for revenue now even with partial shares of BIG money. So that is one avenue for covering exit costs.
Also, if I remember correctly, when Maryland left the ACC they borrowed against future BIG money in order to pay current debts. So that could be another avenue for covering exit costs.
I'd much rather VT explore something like that and leave the donor money to focus on NIL and facilities. I think it is very doable, especially if the SEC/BIG get agreements for more money to spread across more teams.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
2
2hhoop3
1mo
is keep its head down, WIN, and address whatever of their own weaknesses that they can. They should not be distracted by "what ifs" and deal with circumstances as they arise. The money will take care of itself much like scholarship number limits always work out in the end.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
1mo
Football and MBB need to get it right. That said I think VT is either in or not. People know VT's potential. Is that good enough? I think so. I see two things possible. One i would not have thought could happen.
1. ACC breaks away in time and go at it smaller....Let's say MAG7 plus GT/ Maybe Louisville.
2. VT, UNC, FSU and Clemson to SEC.... Uva, GT and Miami to the BIG.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
T
Truthahn
1mo
It would be a good way to get more attractive match ups in conference.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)