With NC schools now making up 27% of the conference (as opposed to 50% back in the day) do they really still control the conference?
If they do control it, would the ACC have added Louisville? While it is a basketball school, wouldn't a school like UConn be more to their liking?
Hokie Club members like to see good football, particularly home football games. The current ACC lineup is so mediocre that Hokie Club donations will either stay flat or decrease. It doesn't matter if FSU wins the national championship, because they so rarely show up on our home schedule.
The ACC is in the worst of all positions right now: we have to hope other parties make decisions that favor us. In other words, we hope that Notre Dame and Texas want to join. The upside, on the other hand is huge. Notre Dame alone is not enough, imo. We need at least two real football programs.
I'll be watching Hokie Club donations carefully over next few years. Hokies will donate to see Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame, but not to see Syracuse, BC, Wake or Duke.
The ACC as presently constituted can never be as good as the SEC. The SEC has slew of programs with big stadiums, loyal fans, huge athletic budgets, great conference revenue and bowl tie-ins. Should I continue?
We need to add football programs or we'll never crack the top two of five conferences, probably stay in the bottom two instead.
Get me Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor, and Tulane in a western pod along with ND all in for football, along with rotating pods as discussed with a 9 game conference schedule, and I think most Hokie fans will forget about the SEC. The schedule that includes fairly frequent home and home games with FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, NCSU, GT, Pitt, Louisville, ND, Oklahoma, OSU, and Texas is pretty damn good! Sign me up.
I see a huge cultural difference between VT and the SEC based on desire to win. VT just doesn't have the fire in the belly to win that takes many SEC programs to the dark side. Not necessarily directly breaking NCAA rules, but unseamly stuff that many of TSL, especially the pay board, swear would make them ashamed of their relationship with VT.
Stuff like oversigning, lack of discipline for arrested players, hiring coaches with shady pasts.
VT fans simply don't have the stomach for it, don't want to win bad enough to do it, and won't force the administration to hire coaches willing to go there to win.
IMO, given the recruiting area and financial resources that VT has, VT would be about as competitive as Arkansas or SoCarolina have been since 1992 - occasional division wins with conference championships being few and far between, maybe 1 or 2 in a 20 year time frame.
In order to be competitive, Arkansas has churned through unsavory coaches like Houston Nutt and Bobby Petrino.
SoCarolina didn't win 10 games as an SEC member until they hired one of the 3 or 4 best coaches in conference history, and even then it took Spurrier several years to get out of the 6-7 wins a year rut to get to double digit wins. I just don't see VT hiring any of these coaches.
BCS level college football is a resource war, not a morality play.
It's not as simple as inviting Texas. The individul school's administrations know this. They have been trying to do it on the cheap. That "To Do List" above takes ungodly sums of other people's money. Committing to it takes courageous leadership. It's risky.
Basketball has carried the ACC a long way. But now the gravy train is the gridiron by a widening margin. The cable TV ship may have sailed. If the conference truly wants to avoid being left behind, the duration of the current ESPN deal should be spent raising $$$ and spending it on a grand FB infrastructure. Adding "better" programs won't work.
Many believe that football's days are numbered. If the ACC leaders believe that too, then why waste the time & dough? But that may just be their excuse for not undertaking the long climb.