unlike the B12, we (the ACC) require more sports than the NCAA minimum for the division, more scholarships minimum than the minimum for the division. It would not be out of line to require stipends. I am not sure I'd approve of it, but I think it would not be improper for the ACC to demand it. When we came in there was a demand that we had to up the ante and spend an extra million on olympic sports post haste. I don't see that requiring BC to do stipends would be out of line in the least. That would be less financial pressure in 2016 than was placed on us in 2003.

Similarly, for the B1G which as already banned FCS football games among its members (additionally a higher standard than the Division, the SEC or the ACC have) along with more sports and scholarships.

I am just saying BC's problem might be as simple as just paying stipends or not.

I've told people many times that BC's exposure in football across New England and the Maritimes impressed me when I was up there for a 2 week fall holiday. However, since we joined the BE, in football we consistently have had higher tv ratings, home attendance, and travel attendance especially to bowls.

Heck, when we entered the BEFC, BC's athletic budget was 150% of VT's. It is now what, 80%. That is a big shift in dynamics.

Should people keep thinking I think VT is too good, I absolutely believe that VT is several steps behind UNC, UVA, Clemson, Louisville, Notre Dame and FSU.