Problem with ACC FB since 2004 is FSU, Miami + Clemson. Whether we added WVU, BC, Toledo, ... is irrelevant. Without those 3 "name" programs carrying their weight, it's hard for the conference to look good.
I dunno, WVU has won three BCS bowls since 2005, over Georgia, Oklahoma, and Clemson. They also have seven top 25 finishes in the last ten years. WVU is not a top tier program, but they are close, and even if you discount a win every year from WVU for the ACC, they're still good. If WVU wins one BCS bowl for the ACC and wins a few bowl games over the years, maybe the press wouldn't have been so openly critical of ACC football. Geez, if WVU is in the Atlantic, maybe Wake-freakin'-Forest doesn't win the ACC. Talk about bad for the ACC's image.
Right now the ACC has four football schools: FSU, VT, Clemson, and Miami. Adding another football school and subtracting dead weight could have changed the conference perception considerably. WVU basketball has been pretty good too.
Nebraska hasn't won a BCS bowl in ten years, and has missed quite a few bowls. WVU has three BCS wins. I don't know about basketball but WVU has been pretty good.
I'm not sure where Nebraska got its reputation as an academic powerhouse - maybe it's the AAU membership that just got yanked. It's biggest asset is a big stadium, loyal fans (who aren't lunatic hillbillies), and history. WVU could be Nebraska, if it weren't for all the West Virginians.
I agree, I am not sure they go to 3 BCS games if they are in the ACC.
2005 - They would have been the Atlantic Division rep instead of FSU, facing a VT team that destroyed them on their home field. No way they get a at-large with two losses to VT (I don't think the extra bowl slot was available in 2005 like VT benefitted from last year).
2007 - They would have beaten out BC for the title game slot to play VT again. I think this year they may have had a chance.
2011 - Doubtful they are even in the title game this year. So no chance for a BCS bowl.
Those BCS wins kept Big East football afloat.