or not. I get why people wish the ACC had added UConn (NYC market) over BC. However, I am not sure UConn would do much to strengthen the ACC football brand. If anything, UConn may have just as easily become the ACC's version of Kansas or have the same impact as what BC has had on the conference.

If we are talking about rewriting history, then I wish the ACC had been visionaries and decided to expand to 12 member back in the 1980s. The ACC could have added Florida State, Miami, and maybe Penn State in 1 move. If the ACC had been able to pull that off, then it would have forced the other conferences to take notice. It may have even forced the SEC to add VT and WVU along with Arkansas and South Carolina.

If the SEC passed on VT and WVU, then it should have prompted the ACC to add both schools in order to keep the SEC out. With so many schools off the table, you would have to think that the Big East Football Conference probably would have never formed or at the least looked very different. Even if the Big East decided to form a football conference, UConn's path would have remained unchanged given its leadership at the time. UConn would still join the party late right as (or after) VT and WVU joined either the ACC or SEC. It is highly unlikely the ACC would have expanded to 16 given the WAC's failed attempt was fresh in people's minds. While the ACC is busy expanding, the Big Ten would have added Pitt and Syracuse at some point. If the Big Ten was looking to add 2 more, then it probably would have come from some sort of combination among Rutgers, BC, Temple, UConn, and Notre Dame.