The ACC will produce some high end rating games. The problem is all of the other games. The ACC is filled with small schools and does not have a football culture near the SEC and B1G. This will never change and is why they are behind in revenue. SEC/B1G fans DEMAND the conference channel to see the tier-3 football games. The B1G dominates the ACC in terms of tv selections. They'll put a B1G game on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU while decent games by ACC standards go to a split Raycom telecast. Of course that is an extreme example but I pay attention to these things every week and it is pretty embarrassing for the conference. All that and another decent game is shown on the B1G Network at the same time that many will watch. ESPN is making a business decision there and the evidence - by simply looking at the tv schedule - clearly shows where they think the ratings will come.

You keep pointing to that VT/OSU game. VT was simply a competent opponent against one of the most hyped teams ever playing in the Monday Night timeslot opposed by no other sporting event. VT can grab ratings but is much more opponent-dependent than many of the bigger names. VT/Clem getting soundly beat by Wisc/PSU was pretty bad. That game had a larger point differential than VT/Clem for most of the game, Clemson was playing for the playoffs while PSU was playing for a remote chance at the playoffs, Clemson has gotten a lot of hype of the last two years, etc. B1G fans turned out to see B1G football. There is so much less of that conference pride and interest in the ACC among the fanbases. This board is a major exception to that.

All that said, the ACC is where VT should be for a number of reasons. It will pull in less tv dollars than than other conferences but tv dollars is only part of the revenue picture and all other ACC schools pull in the same amount. You dump VT into the SEC and they will be outgunned by their fellow conference mates from a financial perspective in a big way.